Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Ian Paisley

2007-05-29T10:46:34Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: ref. From Dr. Paisley's website. From the horse's mouth so to speak.

{{expand}}

[[Image:IanPaisley.gif|frame|Doctor the Reverend Ian Paisley MP]]

Dr. the Reverend '''Ian Richard Kyle Paisley''' MP, MLA (born April 6, 1926) is a [[Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]] politician and religious leader. Paisley uses the title "Doctor" on the basis of an honorary [[Doctor of Divinity]] degree awarded by [[Bob Jones University]].

He is the founder and head of the [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Free Presbyterian Church]] and the head of the [[Democratic Unionist Party]]. He is a lifelong teetotaler who refers to alcohol as "the Devil's buttermilk", a [[creationism|creationist]], pro-life, and supports the criminalisation of [[homosexuality]], once opposing reform of laws relating to homosexuality with a campaign that he called "Save Ulster from Sodomy"<ref>McKittrick, David (24 May 2007). Ian Paisley: Can the Big Man say 'Yes'? ''The Independent''.</ref>.

In 1988, during a speech by [[Pope John Paul II]] to the [[European Parliament]], Paisley, who was a Member of the European Parliament, held up a poster reading "Pope John Paul II Antichrist" and called "I renounce you as the Antichrist"<ref>MacDonald, Susan (10 February 1988). Paisley ejected for insulting Pope. ''The Times''.</ref><ref>Chrisafis, Angelique (16 September, 2004). The return of Dr. No. ''The Guardian''.</ref><ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp The Pope is the Antichrist]</ref>. In 1963 he held a rally to object to the lowering of the national flag at [[Belfast]] City Hall to mark the passing of [[Pope John XXIII]]<ref>McKittrick, David (24 May 2007). Ian Paisley: Can the Big Man say 'Yes'? ''The Independent''.</ref>.

In 2007 Dr Paisley became First Minister of the devolved Northern Ireland Government, with Martin McGuiness, a senior [[Sinn Fein]] leader and former [[IRA]] commander in [[Londonderry]], as his Deputy First Minister.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Paisley, Ian}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Northern Ireland]]
[[Category:Creationist]]

User talk:Order

2007-05-28T15:28:30Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: Hi

Just a note on your recent revert at [[Christianity]]; the vandal was [[User:Shortdog57]], not [[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

: I know. My edit message 'reverted vandalism by shortdog; reverted to version by Hojimachong' was mangeled. If you click on Hojimachong in the history of [[Christianity|Christianity]] you will get to shortdog. Not sure why this happend.

Point taken on European liberal parties. Have contributed minor point to discussion on liberal and applied a minor edit to the article.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for reverting the Christianity page. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 20:49, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

: Warning: you posted a derogatory comment to my talk page ''after'' I warned someone else not to post further discussion about on that topic (Wikipedia's bias) there. Each content page has a talk page for postings comments. Another example of an inappropriate posting will result in the blocking of your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:30, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

<s>You must be a communist.</s> I PROVED to you that global warming is a myth by giving you a link! Why are you questioning it?! - [[User:Sauli|Sauli]] 10:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: This comment just shows that you have no clue what communism means. You proved that you were able to google. --[[User:Order|Order]]

::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sniggers* --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 08:09, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:Without the communist remark, my answer is: iirc, all you did is quote an article about a danish scientist, saying that global warming is overhyped, and that the way its there exist no reasonable definition of average global temperature. I actually think similar about it. Now your 'argument': First, he doesn't say that its not true, just that it is bad science (I wouldn't actually go that far). But the actual problem with your argument is, that a single researcher opposing it doesn't make it a myth. Just as little as a single researcher makes it a fact. [[User:Order]] 7 april, 00:50 (AEST)
Just so you know: I believe that your sig is broken. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler ==

To avoid even more discussion, could you add the citations to your excellent additions to the Putsch? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 05:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the attributions, good sir. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 07:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal ==

I didn't put anything back, in that thread. Look closely. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

No, you didn't, Rob did. Sorry, if I did attribute it to the wrong person. [[User:Order]] 26 March.

== German Homeschooling ==

I'll score that little debate as a big win to the Germans - well done! Makes up for the World Cup ;-) [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 07:50, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, we will see. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:01, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

**Well, we already have. [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 17:06, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for your support with very well put arguments. --[[User:Schifra|schifra]] 07:24, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

TK, why did you revert the last comment by ResistanceFighter on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. User:Order May 21 11:40 (AEST)

Order, I have an old saying: "Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!" The last comment there, FYI, on Fighter's talk page was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting there, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: : What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. [[User:Order]] May 25 [[User:Order]] May 25

*Normal on RW or WP, as you might have noticed by now, is not "normal" here, right? Sorry for the too hostile tone above, man, but doesn't change the answer. ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:49, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

That's cool. You explained it well. [[User:Order]] May 27.

:Hi [[User:Order|Order]], thanks for commenting the spin put on the paper about the higher minimum wage teenagers dropping out of school. You saved me the bother. The last time I commented on dubious interpretations of news articles or suchlike on the [[Main Page]] I was blocked for a month. Proceed with care;-). You might like pop round to my [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|user page]]. [[User:TK|TK]] requested I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatIsG0ing0n&diff=180453&oldid=180350 improve it]. I hope you like it better than my [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:WhatIsG0ing0n&oldid=179908 old version]. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 11:28, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Ignorance

2007-05-28T15:18:08Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: complete quote.

'''Ignorance''' (from Latin ''ignorantia'') is the state of being ignorant; the want of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; or the state of being uneducated or uninformed<ref>'''Ignorance''', Webster's New International Dictionary, Second Edition (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam, 1934)</ref>.

For many people ignorance is bliss. They prefer not knowing something because it is often more comfortable than knowing it.
The opposite of this attitude is what Christian psychiatrist M. Scott Peck calls "(Mental health is the ongoing process of) dedication to reality at all costs".

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Adultery

2007-04-23T10:33:02Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Are my sourced factual edits not welcome? */ see here

{{protected|RSchlafly}}
==Discussion==
I'm new here. I just registered because of the filth that I saw that users 'Conservative' and 'JDMeans' were spreading. I looked in the 'Recent Changes' and saw that he was adding sexual terms here instead of the well-put and benign 'unnatural' that had been there before. I'm disappointed - I thought this was meant to be a purer option than the rest of the revolting internet filth I see all the time? New user, 50something.

:And now JDMeans is reverting my complaint. I think this is a perfectly reasonable complaint. Sysops?

:What kind of filth was I spreading? I thought I was helping. :-) --- JDMeans

All this use of the word 'sexual', and explicit references to sexual things. It's not what I wanted to find here, I can tell you that. I came across Conservapedia on some web link just recently and was hoping there would be less fllth than elsewhere on the web. 50something.

:: As far as I'm concerned, the concept "Adultery" is inherently 'sexual'. I really think the topic can't be adequately discussed or explained without the use of the word, "sexual". If you have any suggestions, let me know and I'll change the entry. What's the complaint that I'm "reverting"? JDMeans ...

Well, I certainly think the ENTIRE TOPIC shouldn't be discussed here. I have a limited amount of experience on the internet, and I can't figure out how to delete an article. But I would like to delete this one. Do we really want our children knowing about adultery? Do we really want them to listen to this filth? When a man and a woman (and no damn faggots) marry, that is a contract for LIFE. Adulterers, and mention of the Sin, should not be mentioned here. You and that user Conservative are spreading VILE FILTH. 50something.

This is an encyclopedia. Aspects of life, like Sin and Adultery, don't just go away with lack of mention. The word "sexual" is not dirty. From a Christian perspective, it is something that the Bible actually encourages: see Song of Solomon, chapter 4 and on. Insofar as homosexuality is concerned, it is as much as sin as adultery, and as much a part the darker side of life as adultery.--- JDMeans

:I don't like protecting pages, but if y'all can't cooperate with the purpose of the project then what else can I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is any variant on the word, 'sex' considered vulgar on this site? -- JDMeans

::I don't have an easy answer to that, but try to think of what would be appropriate to read out loud in church. If it doesn't offend there, then it should be good here. It's not the ideas, it's the context.

::And sorry about your contribs, I actually liked your extension of the Biblical concept to the legal concept: it's a violation regardless of the sex of the married person who commits the crime/sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ruin trust ==
Adultery may ruin trust, but certainly not always. Most marriages do survive an adulterous affair. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gender Bias ==

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your bizarre revert - do you think WOMEN are the only ones who are adulterers? Every time I try and make the article gender-neutral, it is reverted such that it describes women being unfaithful? 50something.

::Roger, I agree with over-50 but I won't revert. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The article discusses biblical adultery. The Bible is not gender-neutral. The Commandment against adultery is directed at women. Yes, I know that other definitions are more common today, but it is just not correct to try to force gender-neutrality into the 10 Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the article was titled "Biblical Adultery". Your argument is ridiculous. It's an article about Adultery, plain and simple, and it happens to, and is caused by, both sexes. 50something.

: You justified your edit with "Removing Biblical references may help you", but you didn't remove the Biblical references, and your version is incorrect. If you want to add a current legal definition of adultery, go ahead, and cite your sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

My version is NOT incorrect, and yes, I did remove the upfront Biblical reference. Adultery is practised by both sexes. If you don't believe so, I doubt you are the right person to be contributing to an Encyclopedia. Applying your own weird gender bias is totally unconstructive, and your attempts deserve a ban. Unless, of course, you can cite your sources that prove that women are the only ones responsible for Adultery. 50something.

Oh, I just plain give up. This website is about as close to an encyclopedia as is a dishwasher. With the racist, sexist and ignorant edits being made here, as well as everywhere else on this site, by users like AShalfy, RSchallfy and Conservative, there's just no point even trying to bring some balance here. You couldn't find a more stable, balanced and normal Conservative Christian than myself, but you guys are just plain ridiculous. Adultery - always committed by women. Sheeesh. Bye. 50something.

:Perhaps if we distinguished between the Biblical concept of adultery and the general "wordly" definition, it might resolve this impasse.

:I gather that in a legal or "ordinary" sense adultery is any kind of [[love]] which "adulterates" the conjugal bonds of marital love. Either spouse could be at fault here.

:As far as Biblical injunctions in the Old and New Testaments go, I'm prepared to acknowledge scholarship indicating standards which vary in subtle or significant ways. It may well be that the Bible is stricter on women than on men.

:Whether this "applies" to the modern world is a thorny question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I am glad 50something is gone. His sole contribution was to repeatedly and inaccurately try to make the Bible gender-neutral. But Ed, I don't really like your edits either. I don't really agree that the Biblical definition concentrates much more on the woman's responsibility, and I don't think that it helps to make those sorts of judgments. Just give the definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I see you left the "Wicked Bible" story in. I don't really care one way or the other, but it is just silly trivia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:02, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::This discussion made me smile. Thanks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

RShlalfy - I'm back. However, I'm not 'he', I'm 'she'. And I have a question for you. Given that I am a 50-something year old Conservative Christian woman, whose husband had an 'unnatural' relationship with another woman, for which I subsequently divorced him, I'm interested to know this: since, according to your definition, what my husband did was NOT adultery, perhaps you could provide me with a term for it? Certainly the court agreed with me that it was adultery, but since you're obviously so knowledgeable about these things, I wonder what you'd call it? [[User:50something|50something]], 10.40am, PST, 4/22/07

: Did the court find that he committed the crime of adultery? What state do you live? Most states don't care about such things. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

You are stretching the limits of my patience RSchalfy. Yes, the court found him guilty of adultery. Yes, every other reference book I have ever consulted considers it adultery. You alone, you Rock of Ages, you Sage of Our Nation, seem to be the only one with your head stuck in the sand. You look ridiculous RSchalfy. Might I ask what age you are? And finally, again I repeat my question - was what my husband did not adultery? 50something.

: Was he sentenced for the adultery? Was he punished in some other way? Was the other woman married? What state was it? I live in California, where no one ever gets found guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

What age are you? I've given you enough information. And anyway, my business is not the point here. Adultery is committed by both men and women, and the article should state that. Your position is utterly ridiculous. 50something

Oh, oh, this is brilliant. You just lokced the page, didn't you?! AHHAHAHHAH this just proves what an utter farce this site is. You just popped back the definition that suits you, despite it being absurd, and locked the page. If that doesn't say everything about this pointless, ego-driven site, I don't know what does. [[User:50something|50something]]

I can't believe it - you also removed my own perfectly good reference, The Catholic Encyclodia reference. You asked for a reference, I provided one. It didn't suit your view, so you removed it. Here's another one, from Christian Answers.: http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html. Your definition here makes it the nly place I can find such a definition on the internet. [[User:50something|50something]]

So now, you and you alone continue to edit the article, despite the page being locked? So, this entire site isn't a community encyclopedia, but is instead basically an essay, written entirely by you? On what basis do you think this makes your "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" a useful resource? Why don't you just call it "The Schalfly Brother's View of The World"? [[User:50something|50something]]

: Yes, I locked the page to stop your repeated false edits. If you tell me more about your husband's situation, then perhaps I can find the definition in the law that was applied to him.
: It sounds to me as if you are using this article to justify walking out on your marriage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:28, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so now you're telling me that I was the one who was wrong? You're brilliant, I'm coming around to liking your perverted logic. Yes, when I walked in on my preacher husband with his trashy girlfriend in her fishnet stockings, I was the one who was in the wrong, yes? OK, I'm very sorry, I should have tried harder, I wish I'd had your number when I needed counselling.

So how do you respond to either of these references I provided (which you've removed, before locking the page):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html

Finally, since you refuse to provide me with any information about you, you ask me for such personal details and make such slander? In my day young pups like you would get a good thrashing for speaking to your elders - and a woman of Faith - like this. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::RSchlafley, your comments here are disgusting. Whatever Leviticus has to to say about adultery, modern law AND common usage applies it to both husbands and wives. Personally insulting a woman because she was the victim --not the perpetrator -- of adultery is especially contemptible. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:41, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you for those kind words of support PF Fox. At least some here want to establish a safe, kind, loving Christian community. Freaks like RScahalfy (and a few others) do Christ's work no good, no good at all. And the immaturity! I now realise why Wikipedia is such a wonderful resource - just one look at the wonderfully fair and balanced page for Adultery there tells you it is written by people who care about ALL views, not just their own bigoted little guttersniping. I have no good words to say about my experience here, I'm sorry to say - as this is much more like what I thought would be my 'natural' community. How disappointing. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::I should perhaps tell you that I'm not a Christian, but that I do know that RSchlafly's views are not typical of Christians. Most of the Christians I know are kind enough and well-informed enough to grasp the difference between the Old Testament definition of "adultery" and the manner in which the word is used and applied today, both legally and in everyday conversation. I'm very sorry if your experience here opened any wounds and caused you pain. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Catholic Encyclopedia==
*''Discussion moved from'' [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Adultery]]
This article has been vandalised by RSchalfy, and having reverted the article to contain his own ridiculous view of adultery to be only committed by women, locked the article. If this isn't proof that this ludicrous "Trustworhy Encyclopedia" is a farce, I don't know what is. I doubt you'll ban your own brother, but this deserves it. 50something. {{Unsigned|50something}}

:So the ''Washington Post'' trumps the Book of Leviticus, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122101&oldid=122095] is that the argument? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I did not add the Washington Post reference. I added one from the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], and Christian Answers [http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html], both of which agree with me. [[User:50something|50something]]
:Ok, It's not certain exactly what happened, you appear to have replaced Lev. & Duet. references with the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I can't find where you put in Christian Answers cite; it's uncertain who put in the ''Washington Post'', and I see you made no reference to Spiritual adultry as defined from the Christian Answers site. Is this about right? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

No, that's not about right. Read the History. I added nothing to this article, and I wrote practically none of it either. I have simply been trying to make it gender netural. I didn't need to add the bit about spiritual adultery, since it was already IN the article. RScahlfy asked me for references, which I provided (Catholic Encyclopedia and Christian Answers), but he removed them, reverted the page to his edit, and locked it. Why is no-one concerned about this SysOp abuse? [[User:50something|50something]]

:OK, two questions, (1) you removed the Lev & Duet cites, and (2) where did you insert Christian Answers cite? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::50something, unfortunately I have to recuse myself from your dispute with RSchlafly, who is one of my brothers (and the only Sysop to whom I am related). I welcome arbitration of the dispute by RobS and/or other Sysops. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I looked at 50something's edit, and I saw nothing wrong with it. He had it written in which it was clear as to both Biblical and secular views. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::We should continue at [[Talk:Adultery]]. I'll be happy to assist in sorting out issues. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==My view==
50something's edit was on the money: adultery is bad news for anyone practicing it, and what she included in this edit happens to agree with what the Bible says about it. Now, since this is Conservapedia, and according to Andy this site has to uphold traditional family values, I strongly insist that this subject be expanded to describe what adultery means, what constitutes it (any sex outside marriage), and what should be done to prevent it. 50something is trying to do just that, and she should be given credit and thanks for it.

So, let's everyone calm down and work on making this article as good as it can possibly be. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:How does the text, "Jesus said that a man commits adultery in his heart..." conflict with 50something's claim the mainspace is not gender neutral? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Both man and woman are fully capable of comitting adultery. When the woman was dragged before Jesus in John ch. 8, where was the man at? Only she was accused of adultery, and Jesus was told the proper method of taking care of someone who commited adultery was by stoning. Now what was Jesus' response?
:::''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.''
::Think about that here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I put something like that into the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122198&oldid=122130] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:(a) The version RSchlafly wrote is unambiguous and does not make a "gender bias" claim; (b) the 1911 encyclopdia cite is a Wiki mirror, so I'm not sure we can keep it, especially in ''this'' arrticle. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, what is the purpose of adultery as pertaining to this article? Is it a "man-thing" only? A "woman-thing"? Or are both parties guilty when practicing it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::I could be wrong in mis-reading the article, but I felt, based on 50something's statements vs RSchlafly's, that the article as it stood was leaning toward the man being "not guilty" in adultery. When I quoted the Bible account of Jesus above, some authorities, as well as pastors (and myself) cite the possibility that Jesus knew they were also being one-sided with the woman ''only'' being the one guilty of adultery (and Jesus would have known everything!). And since Jesus boiled adultery down to even thinking about it, it stands to reason that every sexual act outside of the marriage bond between husband and wife constitutes adultery. So, my suggestion would be to arrange the article as to Old Testament/New Testament descriptions of what constitutes adultery, modern laws in force, and anything else...which what I think 50something was trying to do in the first place.

== Toward avoiding double standards ==

Gentlemen: What seems unclear is what Roger Schlafly meant by "Biblical adultery."

From the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, adultery is an intimate relation between two people, ''either one of whom'' is married to someone else.

The HIBD goes on to say that in the [[Old Testament]], adultery was understood in the context of a man having an intimate relationship with another man's wife, and the man involved had committed an offense against the woman's husband.

In the [[New Testament]], three things changed:
# Adultery was a matter of lustful intent and did not require an actual act. See {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}.
# Very clearly, adultery is definable as unfaithfulness on the part of ''either the husband or the wife.'' [[Paul]], for example, states that a man ought to have one wife only, and even that a man having gone through more than one wife (for reasons other than bereavement) disqualifies himself from serving in the clergy.
# [[Divorce]] was now an offense just as grave as adultery.

I suggest that the article address OT and NT law on the subject, in addition to citing legal precedents in American and British family law.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:At the risk of fomenting sectarian strife, I will second this. Unless Mr. Schlafly has a strong objection, this information should be incorporated - particularly the definition provided by the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:52, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here is the full MLA-style reference:
Michael Fink. "Entry on Adultery." ''The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds. [[Nashville]], [[Tennessee|TN]]: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003 (ISBN 0805428364). pp. 30-31.
--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:05, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: What exactly is the info to be incorporated? The article already addresses OT and NT law on adultery. Is something incorrect? 50something cited the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], but that article confirms that in the Ten Commandments, "adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery". The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary apparently says the same thing. I realize that some people are ideologically opposed to "double standards", but it is important to explain accurately just what was forbidden by the Ten Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Are you sure about that, Roger? I hold the HIBD in my hand, and as I read it, adultery means any illicit activity if ''either partner'' is currently married to someone else.
::Besides: who said anything about ''not'' explaining what was commonly meant in the OT? All I'm saying is that the term ''adultery'' is fairly broad and has more than one meaning.
::As an example of what I mean, and what I suggest, I recommend my articles on [[sin]] and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]]. As you can see, I discuss the concept "sin" in the Biblical sense and in the broader philosophical context.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's an interpretation of the New Testament by Christian author Joe Beam:

:In the New Testament anyone married to one person but sleeping with another committed adultery. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4). [http://www.familydynamics.net/sexandthebible.htm]

I don't mean to start (or prolong) an argument. I'm a guest here. But there is an interesting discussion on the differences between OT and NT standards [http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=153 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: That article says, "In the Old Testament, 'adultery' properly referred to a married or betrothed woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. The Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concept of adultery was substantially the same. The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery." It also mentions that the NT reiterates the OT commandment against adultery in Mark 10:19 and Romans 13:9. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:59, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not certain anything "changed" in the New Testament; adultry was always considered wrong and evil, even ''prior'' to Moses and the Ten Commandments. Genesis 39:7-9 (prior to Exodus & Deutornomy) states,
:::7...his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 8 But he refused, and said unto his master's wife...9... thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2039;&version=9;] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Modern law==
The article says that adultery is punishable under "modern law". Is this the case throughout the US anymore? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:03, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: The cited Wash Post article says that a Virginia lawyer got a misdemeanor conviction, and had to do 20 hours of community service. Such punishments are extremely rare and mild. For most practical purposes, adultery is now legal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Changing times==

The way I always heard it was that Judaism was updated by the Gospel of Christ, so it's probably safe to say that the "male exemption" of the Old Testament was in force then.

But does it still apply to the people of God in modern times? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:I just don't see where a male exemption occurs (KJV); can you be more specific? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Me neither, but I've been brainwashed by feminists. You might ask RSchlafly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:18, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I wouldn't call it a "male exemption". A man who has sexual intercourse with another man's wife was guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::: But what about a married man who had relations with an umarried woman? Any adultery there? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes; unfaithfulness is adultry, be it carnel or spiritual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'd like to see RSchlafly's answer to that one. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 21:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: That is not prohibited under the Ten Commandments, or under California law. Yes, many people disapprove, call it adultery, and consider it immoral. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do you have the KJV cite on this? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:51, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are my sourced factual edits not welcome? ==

Are my sourced factual edits not welcome? (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&oldid=122016 here])
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Adultery

2007-04-23T10:31:48Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: Are my sourced factual edits not welcome?

{{protected|RSchlafly}}
==Discussion==
I'm new here. I just registered because of the filth that I saw that users 'Conservative' and 'JDMeans' were spreading. I looked in the 'Recent Changes' and saw that he was adding sexual terms here instead of the well-put and benign 'unnatural' that had been there before. I'm disappointed - I thought this was meant to be a purer option than the rest of the revolting internet filth I see all the time? New user, 50something.

:And now JDMeans is reverting my complaint. I think this is a perfectly reasonable complaint. Sysops?

:What kind of filth was I spreading? I thought I was helping. :-) --- JDMeans

All this use of the word 'sexual', and explicit references to sexual things. It's not what I wanted to find here, I can tell you that. I came across Conservapedia on some web link just recently and was hoping there would be less fllth than elsewhere on the web. 50something.

:: As far as I'm concerned, the concept "Adultery" is inherently 'sexual'. I really think the topic can't be adequately discussed or explained without the use of the word, "sexual". If you have any suggestions, let me know and I'll change the entry. What's the complaint that I'm "reverting"? JDMeans ...

Well, I certainly think the ENTIRE TOPIC shouldn't be discussed here. I have a limited amount of experience on the internet, and I can't figure out how to delete an article. But I would like to delete this one. Do we really want our children knowing about adultery? Do we really want them to listen to this filth? When a man and a woman (and no damn faggots) marry, that is a contract for LIFE. Adulterers, and mention of the Sin, should not be mentioned here. You and that user Conservative are spreading VILE FILTH. 50something.

This is an encyclopedia. Aspects of life, like Sin and Adultery, don't just go away with lack of mention. The word "sexual" is not dirty. From a Christian perspective, it is something that the Bible actually encourages: see Song of Solomon, chapter 4 and on. Insofar as homosexuality is concerned, it is as much as sin as adultery, and as much a part the darker side of life as adultery.--- JDMeans

:I don't like protecting pages, but if y'all can't cooperate with the purpose of the project then what else can I do? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:31, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Is any variant on the word, 'sex' considered vulgar on this site? -- JDMeans

::I don't have an easy answer to that, but try to think of what would be appropriate to read out loud in church. If it doesn't offend there, then it should be good here. It's not the ideas, it's the context.

::And sorry about your contribs, I actually liked your extension of the Biblical concept to the legal concept: it's a violation regardless of the sex of the married person who commits the crime/sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ruin trust ==
Adultery may ruin trust, but certainly not always. Most marriages do survive an adulterous affair. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:38, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Gender Bias ==

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your bizarre revert - do you think WOMEN are the only ones who are adulterers? Every time I try and make the article gender-neutral, it is reverted such that it describes women being unfaithful? 50something.

::Roger, I agree with over-50 but I won't revert. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:28, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: The article discusses biblical adultery. The Bible is not gender-neutral. The Commandment against adultery is directed at women. Yes, I know that other definitions are more common today, but it is just not correct to try to force gender-neutrality into the 10 Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the article was titled "Biblical Adultery". Your argument is ridiculous. It's an article about Adultery, plain and simple, and it happens to, and is caused by, both sexes. 50something.

: You justified your edit with "Removing Biblical references may help you", but you didn't remove the Biblical references, and your version is incorrect. If you want to add a current legal definition of adultery, go ahead, and cite your sources. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

My version is NOT incorrect, and yes, I did remove the upfront Biblical reference. Adultery is practised by both sexes. If you don't believe so, I doubt you are the right person to be contributing to an Encyclopedia. Applying your own weird gender bias is totally unconstructive, and your attempts deserve a ban. Unless, of course, you can cite your sources that prove that women are the only ones responsible for Adultery. 50something.

Oh, I just plain give up. This website is about as close to an encyclopedia as is a dishwasher. With the racist, sexist and ignorant edits being made here, as well as everywhere else on this site, by users like AShalfy, RSchallfy and Conservative, there's just no point even trying to bring some balance here. You couldn't find a more stable, balanced and normal Conservative Christian than myself, but you guys are just plain ridiculous. Adultery - always committed by women. Sheeesh. Bye. 50something.

:Perhaps if we distinguished between the Biblical concept of adultery and the general "wordly" definition, it might resolve this impasse.

:I gather that in a legal or "ordinary" sense adultery is any kind of [[love]] which "adulterates" the conjugal bonds of marital love. Either spouse could be at fault here.

:As far as Biblical injunctions in the Old and New Testaments go, I'm prepared to acknowledge scholarship indicating standards which vary in subtle or significant ways. It may well be that the Bible is stricter on women than on men.

:Whether this "applies" to the modern world is a thorny question. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I am glad 50something is gone. His sole contribution was to repeatedly and inaccurately try to make the Bible gender-neutral. But Ed, I don't really like your edits either. I don't really agree that the Biblical definition concentrates much more on the woman's responsibility, and I don't think that it helps to make those sorts of judgments. Just give the definition. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I see you left the "Wicked Bible" story in. I don't really care one way or the other, but it is just silly trivia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:02, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::This discussion made me smile. Thanks.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 03:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

RShlalfy - I'm back. However, I'm not 'he', I'm 'she'. And I have a question for you. Given that I am a 50-something year old Conservative Christian woman, whose husband had an 'unnatural' relationship with another woman, for which I subsequently divorced him, I'm interested to know this: since, according to your definition, what my husband did was NOT adultery, perhaps you could provide me with a term for it? Certainly the court agreed with me that it was adultery, but since you're obviously so knowledgeable about these things, I wonder what you'd call it? [[User:50something|50something]], 10.40am, PST, 4/22/07

: Did the court find that he committed the crime of adultery? What state do you live? Most states don't care about such things. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

You are stretching the limits of my patience RSchalfy. Yes, the court found him guilty of adultery. Yes, every other reference book I have ever consulted considers it adultery. You alone, you Rock of Ages, you Sage of Our Nation, seem to be the only one with your head stuck in the sand. You look ridiculous RSchalfy. Might I ask what age you are? And finally, again I repeat my question - was what my husband did not adultery? 50something.

: Was he sentenced for the adultery? Was he punished in some other way? Was the other woman married? What state was it? I live in California, where no one ever gets found guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

What age are you? I've given you enough information. And anyway, my business is not the point here. Adultery is committed by both men and women, and the article should state that. Your position is utterly ridiculous. 50something

Oh, oh, this is brilliant. You just lokced the page, didn't you?! AHHAHAHHAH this just proves what an utter farce this site is. You just popped back the definition that suits you, despite it being absurd, and locked the page. If that doesn't say everything about this pointless, ego-driven site, I don't know what does. [[User:50something|50something]]

I can't believe it - you also removed my own perfectly good reference, The Catholic Encyclodia reference. You asked for a reference, I provided one. It didn't suit your view, so you removed it. Here's another one, from Christian Answers.: http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html. Your definition here makes it the nly place I can find such a definition on the internet. [[User:50something|50something]]

So now, you and you alone continue to edit the article, despite the page being locked? So, this entire site isn't a community encyclopedia, but is instead basically an essay, written entirely by you? On what basis do you think this makes your "Trustworthy Encyclopedia" a useful resource? Why don't you just call it "The Schalfly Brother's View of The World"? [[User:50something|50something]]

: Yes, I locked the page to stop your repeated false edits. If you tell me more about your husband's situation, then perhaps I can find the definition in the law that was applied to him.
: It sounds to me as if you are using this article to justify walking out on your marriage. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:28, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, so now you're telling me that I was the one who was wrong? You're brilliant, I'm coming around to liking your perverted logic. Yes, when I walked in on my preacher husband with his trashy girlfriend in her fishnet stockings, I was the one who was in the wrong, yes? OK, I'm very sorry, I should have tried harder, I wish I'd had your number when I needed counselling.

So how do you respond to either of these references I provided (which you've removed, before locking the page):

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html

Finally, since you refuse to provide me with any information about you, you ask me for such personal details and make such slander? In my day young pups like you would get a good thrashing for speaking to your elders - and a woman of Faith - like this. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::RSchlafley, your comments here are disgusting. Whatever Leviticus has to to say about adultery, modern law AND common usage applies it to both husbands and wives. Personally insulting a woman because she was the victim --not the perpetrator -- of adultery is especially contemptible. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:41, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Thank you for those kind words of support PF Fox. At least some here want to establish a safe, kind, loving Christian community. Freaks like RScahalfy (and a few others) do Christ's work no good, no good at all. And the immaturity! I now realise why Wikipedia is such a wonderful resource - just one look at the wonderfully fair and balanced page for Adultery there tells you it is written by people who care about ALL views, not just their own bigoted little guttersniping. I have no good words to say about my experience here, I'm sorry to say - as this is much more like what I thought would be my 'natural' community. How disappointing. [[User:50something|50something]]

:::I should perhaps tell you that I'm not a Christian, but that I do know that RSchlafly's views are not typical of Christians. Most of the Christians I know are kind enough and well-informed enough to grasp the difference between the Old Testament definition of "adultery" and the manner in which the word is used and applied today, both legally and in everyday conversation. I'm very sorry if your experience here opened any wounds and caused you pain. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:12, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Catholic Encyclopedia==
*''Discussion moved from'' [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Adultery]]
This article has been vandalised by RSchalfy, and having reverted the article to contain his own ridiculous view of adultery to be only committed by women, locked the article. If this isn't proof that this ludicrous "Trustworhy Encyclopedia" is a farce, I don't know what is. I doubt you'll ban your own brother, but this deserves it. 50something. {{Unsigned|50something}}

:So the ''Washington Post'' trumps the Book of Leviticus, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122101&oldid=122095] is that the argument? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I did not add the Washington Post reference. I added one from the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], and Christian Answers [http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/adultery.html], both of which agree with me. [[User:50something|50something]]
:Ok, It's not certain exactly what happened, you appear to have replaced Lev. & Duet. references with the Catholic Encyclopedia, and I can't find where you put in Christian Answers cite; it's uncertain who put in the ''Washington Post'', and I see you made no reference to Spiritual adultry as defined from the Christian Answers site. Is this about right? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

No, that's not about right. Read the History. I added nothing to this article, and I wrote practically none of it either. I have simply been trying to make it gender netural. I didn't need to add the bit about spiritual adultery, since it was already IN the article. RScahlfy asked me for references, which I provided (Catholic Encyclopedia and Christian Answers), but he removed them, reverted the page to his edit, and locked it. Why is no-one concerned about this SysOp abuse? [[User:50something|50something]]

:OK, two questions, (1) you removed the Lev & Duet cites, and (2) where did you insert Christian Answers cite? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::50something, unfortunately I have to recuse myself from your dispute with RSchlafly, who is one of my brothers (and the only Sysop to whom I am related). I welcome arbitration of the dispute by RobS and/or other Sysops. Thanks and Godspeed to you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:46, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I looked at 50something's edit, and I saw nothing wrong with it. He had it written in which it was clear as to both Biblical and secular views. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:49, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::We should continue at [[Talk:Adultery]]. I'll be happy to assist in sorting out issues. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==My view==
50something's edit was on the money: adultery is bad news for anyone practicing it, and what she included in this edit happens to agree with what the Bible says about it. Now, since this is Conservapedia, and according to Andy this site has to uphold traditional family values, I strongly insist that this subject be expanded to describe what adultery means, what constitutes it (any sex outside marriage), and what should be done to prevent it. 50something is trying to do just that, and she should be given credit and thanks for it.

So, let's everyone calm down and work on making this article as good as it can possibly be. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:00, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:How does the text, "Jesus said that a man commits adultery in his heart..." conflict with 50something's claim the mainspace is not gender neutral? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Both man and woman are fully capable of comitting adultery. When the woman was dragged before Jesus in John ch. 8, where was the man at? Only she was accused of adultery, and Jesus was told the proper method of taking care of someone who commited adultery was by stoning. Now what was Jesus' response?
:::''Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.''
::Think about that here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:19, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I put something like that into the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Adultery&diff=122198&oldid=122130] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:(a) The version RSchlafly wrote is unambiguous and does not make a "gender bias" claim; (b) the 1911 encyclopdia cite is a Wiki mirror, so I'm not sure we can keep it, especially in ''this'' arrticle. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, what is the purpose of adultery as pertaining to this article? Is it a "man-thing" only? A "woman-thing"? Or are both parties guilty when practicing it? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::I could be wrong in mis-reading the article, but I felt, based on 50something's statements vs RSchlafly's, that the article as it stood was leaning toward the man being "not guilty" in adultery. When I quoted the Bible account of Jesus above, some authorities, as well as pastors (and myself) cite the possibility that Jesus knew they were also being one-sided with the woman ''only'' being the one guilty of adultery (and Jesus would have known everything!). And since Jesus boiled adultery down to even thinking about it, it stands to reason that every sexual act outside of the marriage bond between husband and wife constitutes adultery. So, my suggestion would be to arrange the article as to Old Testament/New Testament descriptions of what constitutes adultery, modern laws in force, and anything else...which what I think 50something was trying to do in the first place.

== Toward avoiding double standards ==

Gentlemen: What seems unclear is what Roger Schlafly meant by "Biblical adultery."

From the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary, adultery is an intimate relation between two people, ''either one of whom'' is married to someone else.

The HIBD goes on to say that in the [[Old Testament]], adultery was understood in the context of a man having an intimate relationship with another man's wife, and the man involved had committed an offense against the woman's husband.

In the [[New Testament]], three things changed:
# Adultery was a matter of lustful intent and did not require an actual act. See {{Bible ref|book=Matthew|chap=5|verses=28-30|version=NASB}}.
# Very clearly, adultery is definable as unfaithfulness on the part of ''either the husband or the wife.'' [[Paul]], for example, states that a man ought to have one wife only, and even that a man having gone through more than one wife (for reasons other than bereavement) disqualifies himself from serving in the clergy.
# [[Divorce]] was now an offense just as grave as adultery.

I suggest that the article address OT and NT law on the subject, in addition to citing legal precedents in American and British family law.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:48, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:At the risk of fomenting sectarian strife, I will second this. Unless Mr. Schlafly has a strong objection, this information should be incorporated - particularly the definition provided by the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:52, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::Here is the full MLA-style reference:
Michael Fink. "Entry on Adultery." ''The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary''. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds. [[Nashville]], [[Tennessee|TN]]: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003 (ISBN 0805428364). pp. 30-31.
--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:05, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: What exactly is the info to be incorporated? The article already addresses OT and NT law on adultery. Is something incorrect? 50something cited the Catholic Encyclopedia [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm], but that article confirms that in the Ten Commandments, "adultery meant only the carnal intercourse of a wife with a man who was not her lawful husband. The intercourse of a married man with a single woman was not accounted adultery". The Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary apparently says the same thing. I realize that some people are ideologically opposed to "double standards", but it is important to explain accurately just what was forbidden by the Ten Commandments. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 19:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Are you sure about that, Roger? I hold the HIBD in my hand, and as I read it, adultery means any illicit activity if ''either partner'' is currently married to someone else.
::Besides: who said anything about ''not'' explaining what was commonly meant in the OT? All I'm saying is that the term ''adultery'' is fairly broad and has more than one meaning.
::As an example of what I mean, and what I suggest, I recommend my articles on [[sin]] and [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]]. As you can see, I discuss the concept "sin" in the Biblical sense and in the broader philosophical context.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:57, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Here's an interpretation of the New Testament by Christian author Joe Beam:

:In the New Testament anyone married to one person but sleeping with another committed adultery. "Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral" (Hebrews 13:4). [http://www.familydynamics.net/sexandthebible.htm]

I don't mean to start (or prolong) an argument. I'm a guest here. But there is an interesting discussion on the differences between OT and NT standards [http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=153 here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:40, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: That article says, "In the Old Testament, 'adultery' properly referred to a married or betrothed woman having sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. The Greek, Roman, and Hebrew concept of adultery was substantially the same. The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery." It also mentions that the NT reiterates the OT commandment against adultery in Mark 10:19 and Romans 13:9. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:59, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::It's not certain anything "changed" in the New Testament; adultry was always considered wrong and evil, even ''prior'' to Moses and the Ten Commandments. Genesis 39:7-9 (prior to Exodus & Deutornomy) states,
:::7...his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. 8 But he refused, and said unto his master's wife...9... thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2039;&version=9;] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Modern law==
The article says that adultery is punishable under "modern law". Is this the case throughout the US anymore? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:03, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

: The cited Wash Post article says that a Virginia lawyer got a misdemeanor conviction, and had to do 20 hours of community service. Such punishments are extremely rare and mild. For most practical purposes, adultery is now legal. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:20, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Changing times==

The way I always heard it was that Judaism was updated by the Gospel of Christ, so it's probably safe to say that the "male exemption" of the Old Testament was in force then.

But does it still apply to the people of God in modern times? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:I just don't see where a male exemption occurs (KJV); can you be more specific? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:14, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::Me neither, but I've been brainwashed by feminists. You might ask RSchlafly. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 21:18, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I wouldn't call it a "male exemption". A man who has sexual intercourse with another man's wife was guilty of adultery. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:21, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::: But what about a married man who had relations with an umarried woman? Any adultery there? --[[User:Jtl|Jtl]] 21:24, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes; unfaithfulness is adultry, be it carnel or spiritual. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:32, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'd like to see RSchlafly's answer to that one. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] [[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]] 21:38, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: That is not prohibited under the Ten Commandments, or under California law. Yes, many people disapprove, call it adultery, and consider it immoral. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:43, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do you have the KJV cite on this? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:51, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are my sourced factual edits not welcome? ==

Are my sourced factual edits not welcome?
[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:31, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Adultery

2007-04-22T18:01:11Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: headers

==Adultery and the Law==

In law adultery is usually defined as engaging in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when the person doing so has a living spouse.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62581-2004Sep4.html</ref> In western Europe and North America adultury by either spouse is a ground for [[divorce]], though in the U.S. the shift to no-fault divorce significantly reduced the importance of adultery as an element in divorce proceedings.

==Adultery and the Bible==

Adultery is unnatural relations between a married person and a person other than their spouse, as described in The Catholic Encyclopedia <ref>http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01163a.htm</ref> The Bible forbids adultery in the [[Ten Commandments]] (Exodus 20:14).

Jesus said that a man commits adultery in his heart by lustfully looking at a woman. (Matthew 5:28) Sexual intercourse by a married man or woman outside marriage is considered adultery under modern law, although it is hardly ever punished anymore.

==The effects of adultery==

Adultery ruins trust between husband and wife and destroys families. It is contrary to the traditional marriage pronouncement derived from Matthew 19:6: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." It also breaks the promise that the bride and groom make to each other in virtually every form of marriage ceremony observed in the U.S.—even secular observances conducted in judge's chambers, or in vows written by the couple themselves.

==Notes and references==
<references/>

== See also ==

*[[fidelity]]
[[category:sociology]]

Conservative estimate

2007-04-22T17:37:24Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: definition

A '''conservative estimate''' is a cautious (avoiding excess) approximate calculation of quantity or degree or worth of something.
On the other hand a ''liberal estimate'' would be much looser and less cautious. For example a conservative estimate of the number of [[Buddhist]]s in China is about 528,546,908 whereas a less cautious [[liberal]] estimate is 1,202,444,216. <ref>http://vipassanafoundation.com/Buddhists.html</ref>

[[Josh Becker]], the film director, described the definition of a conservative estimate as "'the low point'" continuing "Whereas, a 'liberal estimate' would give you the high end. Isn’t this simply a variation of the half-empty, half-full view of the world? Conservatives are on the half-empty side, and honestly, who wants to be there? The half-empty philosophy is the pessimistic, downbeat view, and ultimately anyone with that perspective is a drag to be around. Not only that, but 'the conservative estimate' regarding just about anything, from contracting work, plumbing, carpentry, car repairs, movie budgets, or anything else, is nearly always wrong. Estimates rarely if ever come out at the low-end. If I take my car in to have a squeak fixed, they’ll certainly find something else wrong, and the initial, conservative, estimate of $200, invariably becomes a reality of more like $1,000."<ref>http://www.beckerfilms.com/conservatism.htm</ref>

==References==

<references/>

MySpace

2007-04-22T16:32:51Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: oops!

'''MySpace''' is an online social networking site which allows users to create custom profiles, and upload photos and videos. As of March 2007, over 130 Million people use MySpace.

==Criticism==
Many adults have criticized MySpace as being a hotbed for pedophiles and other undesirable users.<ref>[http://www.csoonline.com.au/index.php/id;1561163121;fp;16;fpid;0 "Mr. Safety keeps watch on MySpace security"]</ref>

Many others have criticized it for being the very demise of real-life relationships, instead forcing those relationships onto the internet.

==References==
<references/>

MySpace

2007-04-22T16:32:34Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Criticism */ refs.

MySpace

2007-04-22T16:31:58Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Criticism */ refs.

Martin McGuinness

2007-04-22T16:25:30Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: create page

'''Martin McGuinness''' was born in Derry, Northern Ireland on 23 May 1950. He joined the [[terrorist]] [[Irish Republican Army|IRA]] around 1970. In November 2003 he confirmed to the Bloody Sunday Inquiry that he had been second-in-command of the Provisional IRA in Derry in 1972. He is now a [[Sinn Fein]] Member of Parliament for Mid Ulster, like his party colleagues, he has refused to take his seat in Westminster.

[[Category:Terrorists]]

Gerry Adams

2007-04-22T16:16:56Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* References */ cat.

Gerry Adams (born October 6, 1948) has been the president of [[Sinn Fein]], a political party in the [[Republic of Ireland]] and in [[Northern Ireland]], since 1983. He has been elected to the [[United Kingdom]] parliament, for the Belfast West constituency, but has never formally taken up his seat, although he and other Sinn Fein MPs do make use of parliamentary facilities. Adams was one of the key figures in the [[Irish peace process]], which culminated with the 1998 [[Good Friday Agreement]]<ref>Moloney, E. (2002). A Secret History of the IRA. New York: WJ Wiley</ref>.

== Early life ==
Gerard Adams (Gearóid Mac Ádhaimh in Irish Gaelic) was born into a Catholic Nationalist family in West Belfast as one of 10 siblings. Both sides of the family had an extensive history of involvement in Nationalist activities. Adams attended primary school in Belfast, but left school early to become a bartender, and joined Sinn Fein in 1964.

== Republican activity ==
Adams was an important figure in the [[terrorist]] [[IRA]] from the early 1970s<ref>http://www.ivanfoster.org/page.asp?ira</ref> He was interned without trial in 1971 but released in July 1972 to participate in negotiations with the British government. Adams has consistently denied ever being an IRA member.<ref>Cowan, R. (October 1, 2002). Adams denies IRA links as book calls him genius. ''The Guardian''.</ref>

In 1983, Adams became the first member of Sinn Fein to be elected to the UK [[House of Commons]] since 1918. Sinn Fein had generally not contested UK elections during that period, as a protest against UK rule in Northern Ireland. Adams is an abstentionist MP, meaning that he has never taken his seat in the House of Commons, consistent with Sinn Fein policy.

In March 1984 Adams survived an assassination attempt by members of the [[Ulster Freedom Fighters]], or UFF, a terrorist group dedicated to maintaining the link between Northern Ireland and the UK. The UFF members were arrested shortly after the shooting by undercover officers of the [[Royal Ulster Constabulary]], and Adams has claimed that the police were aware that the assassination attempt was planned and allowed it to happen<ref>Maguire, K. (December 14, 2006). Adams wants 1984 shooting probe. ''BBC''.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Terrorists]]

Vegetarianism

2007-04-22T15:58:27Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Biblical View */ source

'''Vegetarianism''' is the practice of abstaining from [[meat]] consumption. Somebody who practices vegetarianism is referred to as a ''vegetarian''. Vegetarianism is a common theme among the [[Dharmic]] religions, such as [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], and [[Jainism]]. This stems from the belief that all higher animal life is sacred (though in Jainism, ''all'' life is considered sacred), one of the core concepts of all of these religions. Many people outside of these religions also choose to be vegetarians because of various other beliefs, such as protesting what they see as harmful practices by the meat production industry.

==Forms of Vegetarianism==
*Vegan - Someone who consumes only a diet based on plants; no animal meat, animal products such as milk or cheese, or byproducts such as gelatine
*Lactovegetarian - Someone who eats a plant based diet but also eats animal produced foods such as milk and cheese.
*Ovo-lactovegetarian (or lacto-ovovege-tarian) - Similar to the Lactovegetarian but also consumes eggs.
*Pescetarian - as above but with the inclusion of fish.

==Biblical View==
The [[Bible]] specifically takes a position on the eating of [[pork]]:

:''Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.'' (Leviticus 11.4 KJV)

==External Links==
*[http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm USDA Dietary Guidelines]

[[category:psychology]] [[category:biology]]

Feminism

2007-04-22T14:45:32Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Quotations */ Pat Robertson

Feminism is a philosophy which argues for gender equality.

Roots of the movement in the United States and the United Kingdom include the [[Women's Suffrage]] movement of the early 1900's and the [[Women's Liberation]] (or "Second Wave Feminist") movement of the 1960's and 1970's.

An [[Equal Rights Amendment]] was proposed in the US in 1972, but was not ratified. Opponents of the amendment cited the following consequences: making girls subject to the military draft; the integration of single-sex schools; the possible recognition of homosexual marriage; and the revocation of laws that protect women in dangerous jobs, like factory or mining work.

The feminist movement in the West evolved in the 1980s with the rise of [[Post-Feminism]] which stresses that women have many rights that go unrecognized in everyday life, often by women themselves, and in the American legal structure. Most members of the feminist movement support reproductive rights currently enshrined in American law, including the legal right to [[abortion]]. This stance is opposed by many conservatives, leading political commentator [[Rush Limbaugh]] to coin the term "Femi-nazis" to refer to feminist supporters of abortion rights. As of April 2007, women in the US have a legal right to abortion, with limitations in some cases. According to a recent poll, 16% of the American public favor abortion being legal in all cases, and 39% favor abortion being legal in most cases. 31% feel that abortion should be illegal in most cases and 12% believe it should be illegal in all cases. 2% are unsure on the issue. <ref>http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm</ref>

Second Wave Feminism has made a resurgence in 1990s and early years of 21st century as the movement is spreading internationally in [[Asia]] and the [[Middle East]]. During the administration of [[Bill Clinton]] these latter-day feminists overlooked President Clinton's apparently womanizing behavior in order to focus upon his attempts to procure federal funding for several of their causes.

==Quotations==

The English novelist and critic [[Rebecca West]] said:
<blockquote>
"I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute."<ref>http://www.answers.com/topic/rebecca-west</ref>
</blockquote>

The televangelist [[Pat Robertson]] said:
<blockquote>"The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians."</blockquote>

==See also==
*[[Gender equality]]
*[[Equal pay for equal work]]

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/ The Feminist eZine] Archive of articles about Feminist History.

Atheism

2007-04-22T14:37:39Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Atheism and morality */ typo

'''Atheism''' is defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref> Other definitions exist which simply state something along the lines of a "belief that there is no God or gods."<ref>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism</ref><ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/25416/gloss.htm</ref><ref>http://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm</ref><ref>http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/guskeptics/definitions.htm</ref>. Such definitions are perceived by Creation Wiki<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Atheism</ref> as recent "attempts by atheists to redefine the meaning of atheism in order to shift the burden of proof in relation to the question of the existence of God." This itself contradicts the traditional concept of ''burden of proof''<ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/truth.html#burden</ref> where those making the claim that something is true have to provide evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the truthfulness of their claim. Proving the claim that something does not exists can only be disproven by providing supporting evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the existence of that which is denied to exist. Proof for the existence of God is ultimately [[faith]] based. <ref>http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheism and morality ==

Since atheism is not a worldview it carries no obligation to any kind of moral system such as those based on political ideologies or religious texts. Thus atheism is ''amoral'' not ''immoral''. Immorality results from flouting the conventions of one's own morality; amorality is being without morality.<ref>http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/</ref> Atheists of course do have moral and ethical codes which differ among atheists since atheists can have any system of morality they choose.

== Origins of atheism==

It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity).

It was only from the late 18th century after the demise of the of Church's controll and influence over western society that the first openly atheistic thinkers appeared. Following the French Revolution in the 19th century rationalistic and freethinking philosophers under the influenced the rise of atheism to prominence. Many prominent German philosophers of this era denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

During the 20th century atheistic thought found recognition in a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as existentialism, Objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, logical positivism, Marxism, feminism and the general [[science|scientific]] and rationalist movement. Since the collapse of [[communism]] and the reduction in the number of actively antireligious regimes many God-based and faith-based movements are experiencing increasing confidence and influence vis-à-vis secular movements and ideologies.

Atheism is apparently mentioned in the Bible:
:"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 14:1 KJV)

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, theists claim that the first and second law of thermodyamics argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-04-22T14:36:27Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: typo

'''Atheism''' is defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref> Other definitions exist which simply state something along the lines of a "belief that there is no God or gods."<ref>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism</ref><ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/25416/gloss.htm</ref><ref>http://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm</ref><ref>http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/guskeptics/definitions.htm</ref>. Such definitions are perceived by Creation Wiki<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Atheism</ref> as recent "attempts by atheists to redefine the meaning of atheism in order to shift the burden of proof in relation to the question of the existence of God." This itself contradicts the traditional concept of ''burden of proof''<ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/truth.html#burden</ref> where those making the claim that something is true have to provide evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the truthfulness of their claim. Proving the claim that something does not exists can only be disproven by providing supporting evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the existence of that which is denied to exist. Proof for the existence of God is ultimately [[faith]] based. <ref>http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheism and morality ==

Since atheism is not a worldview it carries no obligation to any kind of moral system such as those based on political ideologies or religious texts. Thus atheism is ''amoral'' not ''immoral''. Immorality results from flouting the conventions of one's own morality; amorality is being without morality.<ref>http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/</ref> Atheists of course do have moral and ethical codes which differ among atheists since atheists can have any system of morality they choose.

=== Origins of atheism===

It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity).

It was only from the late 18th century after the demise of the of Church's controll and influence over western society that the first openly atheistic thinkers appeared. Following the French Revolution in the 19th century rationalistic and freethinking philosophers under the influenced the rise of atheism to prominence. Many prominent German philosophers of this era denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

During the 20th century atheistic thought found recognition in a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as existentialism, Objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, logical positivism, Marxism, feminism and the general [[science|scientific]] and rationalist movement. Since the collapse of [[communism]] and the reduction in the number of actively antireligious regimes many God-based and faith-based movements are experiencing increasing confidence and influence vis-à-vis secular movements and ideologies.

Atheism is apparently mentioned in the Bible:
:"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 14:1 KJV)

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, theists claim that the first and second law of thermodyamics argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-04-22T12:52:08Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Christian View of Origins */ could do with sources

'''Atheism''' is defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref> Other definitions exist a which simply state something along the lines of a "belief that there is no God or gods."<ref>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism</ref><ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/25416/gloss.htm</ref><ref>http://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm</ref><ref>http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/guskeptics/definitions.htm</ref>. Such definitions are perceived by Creation Wiki<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Atheism</ref> as recent "attempts by atheists to redefine the meaning of atheism in order to shift the burden of proof in relation to the question of the existence of God." This itself contradicts the traditional concept of ''burden of proof''<ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/truth.html#burden</ref> where those making the claim that something is true have to provide evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the truthfulness of their claim. Proving the claim that something does not exists can only be disproven by providing supporting evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the existence of that which is denied to exist. Proof for the existence of God is ultimately [[faith]] based. <ref>http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheism and morality ==

Since atheism is not a worldview it carries no obligation to any kind of moral system such as those based on political ideologies or religious texts. Thus atheism is ''amoral'' not ''immoral''. Immorality results from flouting the conventions of one's own morality; amorality is being without morality.<ref>http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/</ref> Atheists of course do have moral and ethical codes which differ among atheists since atheists can have any system of morality they choose.

=== Origins of atheism===

It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity).

It was only from the late 18th century after the demise of the of Church's controll and influence over western society that the first openly atheistic thinkers appeared. Following the French Revolution in the 19th century rationalistic and freethinking philosophers under the influenced the rise of atheism to prominence. Many prominent German philosophers of this era denied the existence of deities and were critical of religion, including Ludwig Feuerbach, Arthur Schopenhauer, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche.

During the 20th century atheistic thought found recognition in a wide variety of other, broader philosophies, such as existentialism, Objectivism, secular humanism, nihilism, logical positivism, Marxism, feminism and the general [[science|scientific]] and rationalist movement. Since the collapse of [[communism]] and the reduction in the number of actively antireligious regimes many God-based and faith-based movements are experiencing increasing confidence and influence vis-à-vis secular movements and ideologies.

Atheism is apparently mentioned in the Bible:
:"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good" (Psalm 14:1 KJV)

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, theists claim that the first and second law of thermodyamics argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-04-22T12:29:54Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Atheist morality */ copyedit

'''Atheism''' is defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref> Other definitions exist a which simply state something along the lines of a "belief that there is no God or gods."<ref>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism</ref><ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/25416/gloss.htm</ref><ref>http://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm</ref><ref>http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/guskeptics/definitions.htm</ref>. Such definitions are perceived by Creation Wiki<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Atheism</ref> as recent "attempts by atheists to redefine the meaning of atheism in order to shift the burden of proof in relation to the question of the existence of God." This itself contradicts the traditional concept of ''burden of proof''<ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/truth.html#burden</ref> where those making the claim that something is true have to provide evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the truthfulness of their claim. Proving the claim that something does not exists can only be disproven by providing supporting evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the existence of that which is denied to exist. Proof for the existence of God is ultimately [[faith]] based. <ref>http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheism and morality ==

Since atheism is not a worldview it carries no obligation to any kind of moral system such as those based on political ideologies or religious texts. Thus atheism is ''amoral'' not ''immoral''. Immorality results from flouting the conventions of one's own morality; amorality is being without morality.<ref>http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/</ref> Atheists of course do have moral and ethical codes which differ among atheists since atheists can have any system of morality they choose.

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths."

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, theists claim that the first and second law of thermodyamics argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Atheism

2007-04-22T12:06:45Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: copyedit

'''Atheism''' is defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' as "the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God."<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref> Other definitions exist a which simply state something along the lines of a "belief that there is no God or gods."<ref>http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=atheism</ref><ref>http://library.thinkquest.org/25416/gloss.htm</ref><ref>http://www.reasoned.org/glossary.htm</ref><ref>http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/guskeptics/definitions.htm</ref>. Such definitions are perceived by Creation Wiki<ref>http://creationwiki.org/Atheism</ref> as recent "attempts by atheists to redefine the meaning of atheism in order to shift the burden of proof in relation to the question of the existence of God." This itself contradicts the traditional concept of ''burden of proof''<ref>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/claims/truth.html#burden</ref> where those making the claim that something is true have to provide evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the truthfulness of their claim. Proving the claim that something does not exists can only be disproven by providing supporting evidence<ref>http://john.curtin.edu.au/society/glossary/</ref> for the existence of that which is denied to exist. Proof for the existence of God is ultimately [[faith]] based. <ref>http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html</ref>

Well-known atheists include [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Stephen Jay Gould]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[William Borden]] and [[Sam Harris]].

== Atheist morality ==

Atheists typically hold that no religious text can be our only source of morality although all of them may contain useful ideas or principles. As atheists do not believe in any form of deity, books purported to be based upon the wishes of such deities are inherently suspect. Additionally, many atheists assert the Bible contains immoral acts which they claim include the Israelite expulsion of heathen nations from Canaan, the stoning of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/gay/long.htm homosexuals] to death, poor treatment of women, and the institution of [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/slavery.html slavery]. [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] counter assert that these objections to the goodness of God are invalid. <ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/outrage.html</ref><ref>http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con030.asp</ref><ref>http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2007/0202.asp</ref>

=== Christian View of Origins ===

It is difficult to trace the origins of atheism as a result of the incomplete historic record. It is known that ancient Greece produced a theory of materialism as early as the 5th century BC. Materialism is a philosophical position that the material is all that exists. Therefore, it automatically excludes immaterial beings. In addition to materialism the Greeks also considered Spiritualism, in which the material world is an illusion and only spirit exists, as well as dualism, in which both the material and the spiritual exist (e.g. Christianity). It is important to note that while many atheists are strict materialists, some are not. As an example, some philosophical systems generally regarded as religions (i.e. Buddhism) lack deities and thus could be regarded as "atheistic faiths."

The writer of the Book of Psalms knew of atheists and atheism and registered disapproval in Psalm 14: "The Fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." The book of Psalms precedes the 5th century BC by hundreds of years {{fact}}.

== Atheist Population ==

In the [[Great Britain]] 2001 census, 15.5% of the population identify themselves as having no religious beliefs [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293 2001 Census]. This category included [[agnostics]], atheists, [[heathens]] and those who wrote [[Jedi Knight]]. However other articles [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggest] a much higher rate of around 52% in the UK once agnostics have been considered.

More specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of Atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. The Christian research organization, the Barna Group, [http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=160 reports] that 12% of Americans are atheist or agnostic. Given that the methodology of the Barna Group study does not distinguish between atheists and agnostics, it is impossible to say if their results support, or contradict, the 4% figure. Estimates of the prevalence in atheism in the United States are, however, almost always much lower than comparable estimates from Europe.

It is important to keep in mind that surveys containing an option for "no religion" are not necessarily identifying solely atheists. Indeed, many individuals may believe strongly in some form of god but not subscribe to any one particular religion, and as a result will enter a response of "no religion" on surveys. As an example, 14.39% of the respondents to the 2004 General Social Survey in the United States claim to have "no religion." Of a subsample (197 respondents) of those persons with no religion who answered a second question on the origins of man, 19.80% believe that God created man while an additional 43.15% believe that God created man by guiding evolution over time. Thus, cumulatively 62.95% of those with "no religion" still believe that God was directly responsible for the creation of man in some fashion. Clearly, then, many of those claiming to have "no religion" are not atheists. These data are available and can be analyzed online [http://sda.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/hsda?harcsda+gss04 GSS Data Online]. Additionally, some atheists consider atheism to be a religion and will not respond that they have "no religion" on surveys, often preferring an "other" option.

== Public Disapproval of Atheists in America ==

Research by Penny Edgell, Joseph Gerteis and Douglas Hartmann in the American Sociological Review [http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asoca/asr/2006/00000071/00000002/art00003 indicates] that most Americans would be more willing to vote for a homosexual or Muslim presidential candidate than an atheist. The same study indicates that 47.6% of Americans would disapprove of their child marrying an atheist. More recent [http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=26611&pg=1 Gallup polls] confirm this finding and indicate that atheists are among the most disliked minorities in the United States. In addition, former President George H.W. Bush has previously [http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm stated] that he does not believe atheists should be considered citizens of the United States.

Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006- Table 1 (Percentage of respondents answering affirmatively):
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are one contemporary group known to discriminate against atheists. The BSA has been sued several times by Scouts who had been denied the rank of Eagle solely because they were atheists.

== The Problem of Evil==

One argument against belief in all-powerful entities ('gods') is the existence of evil. Philosopher and materialist Epicurus (341-270 BC), wrote:

:Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
:Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
:Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
:Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

[[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil. <ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil. <ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologetists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

== The Problem of Origins==

Arguments against atheism sometimes invoke the Problem of Origins. This problem can be simply stated as:

:All things that exist have causes.
:The universe exists.
:The universe must have a cause.

Theists often claim that God is the origin of the universe and, thus, that this Problem of Origins is evidence for the existence of God. Atheists use a variety of possible counters to this claim but the simplest is likely that invoking God as "first cause" simply removes the problem one step. So, if the problem of the origin of the universe is solved by attributing it to god, it simply raises the problem of the origin of God. If God can be uncaused then, atheists claim, so can the universe. However, theists claim that the first and second law of thermodyamics argues against an eternal universe. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref>

Many leading scientists reject God. <ref>http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6691/full/394313a0.html</ref>[[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

Creationists also state that the [[origin of life]] is not possible though natural processes and the origin of life is the result of God. <ref>http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html</ref><ref>http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp</ref><ref>http://www.macrodevelopment.org/library/meyer.html</ref>

==External Links==

*[http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-harris24dec24,0,3994298.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail 10 Myths and 10 Truths about Atheism]
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-04-21T18:00:26Z

WhatIsG0ing0n:

''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''

==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the "poem".
The poem is a feeble attempt
on the part of VTech's English Department
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]
to hang their liberal agenda on.
Andy's just calling them out on this.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}} This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::And this site's response (plastered all over the front page) isn't also political and self-serving? This smacks of '''hypocrisy''' somewhat. The lack of compassion that you're showing here is also rather distasteful. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]].

:Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? <s>Get real, mister.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, we don't allow baseless namecalling here. Calling anyone a "bigot" here, particularly when it is baseless, results in blocking of the account. In your case, I've warned you repeatedly about wasting the time of productive editors.

: Ideas do matter, and Conservapedia will continue to criticize liberal notions here. The poem on the main page is an example of that. The liberals here protest too much the valid criticism of that political, self-serving poem that is officially posted on the front page of the Virginia Tech website. Virginia Tech officials should hear criticism, and it is not just Conservapedia's main page that is criticism them.

: People who threaten to stifle Conservapedia's free speech by threatening it will obviously also find their accounts blocked. Wikipedia will welcome your political correctness with open arms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. '''LEAVE'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something. The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it. But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating. Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This may be news to you, but AmesG, Myk, WhatsGoingOn, and many others have spewed their own brand of hatred, and THAT is wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:And how are your responses here (and your threats of blocking, and erasure of their edits) not hatred? They post something that you disagree with, so you reply with personal attacks and slanders. Or don't you realise that it's '''wrong''' for you too? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::First and foremost, I have neither slandered nor attacked anyone. Second, I blocked users who deliberately and willfully harmed or threatened to harn Conservapedia, and I have blocked users who refused to let a debate be a debate and instead allowed it to become hostile. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Namecalling against editors and/or Conservapedia is not allowed here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please cite the examples of my ''own brand of hatred'', explain what was hateful about it and, if justified, I will try to mend my ways.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::fair enough...the above line, mocking the "trustworthy encyclopedia". Your own mockery of this site is on about every posting you have made since you got here, and you could very well be taking steps to help make this a better encyclopedia, but you're not, are you? I would call that hatred. If you do not like this site, you are free to edit elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Others would call my contributions [[constructive criticism]] and welcome them as part of a drive to improve overall encyclopedic quality. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:50, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Simply phrasing something as a question does not mean it is respectful of free speech here. I'm not inclined to block your account like the others, yet, but it's a close call. Name-calling against editors or Conservapedia in an attempt to stifle something will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I thought you were for free speech, against censorship, and against 'stifling something.'
:::#13:12, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "AmesG (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (namecalling ("bigot"), also an attempt to stifle free speech by making a threat)
:::#13:07, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "Myk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (for comment "hate spewing toy"; also may violate 90% talk/10% edit rule)
:::There is no commandment prohibiting 'namecalling' or 'hate spewing toy comments'. I dont know how your rules are more concise than wikipedia's when you have like five unwritten rules. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 13:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Free speech contains responsibility. Just as you don't claim a right to free speech when you walk into that theater and scream "FIRE" when there is no fire, you don't claim it by name-calling here (or worse) anytime you please. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Dear [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], have I somehow not been ''respectful of free speech''?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I'm not going to say you've been disrespectful of free speech, but you have been disrespectful of this site. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: In addition to Karajou's observation, the following statement (copied from above) by WhatIsGOingOn was an apparent attempt to censor Conservapedia's criticism of the official Virginia Tech poem: "Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this Trustworthy Encylopedia sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?" WhatIsGOingOn, if you want to censor conservative criticism, then please go to Wikipedia for that. Don't try to censor such speech here. And don't distract productive editors further here. Build some good entries before more talk, talk, talk. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I wasn't trying to ''censor'' anything'' - I was exercising ''free speech''. [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== The Poem, as it is placed on the front page ==

Read for yourself the official response by Virginia Tech's English Department. '''No mention of God or prayer, but many invocations of unrelated liberal causes:'''

...
 We are Virginia Tech
 We do not understand this tragedy
 We know we did nothing to deserve it [denies accountability]

But neither does a child in Africa
 Dying of AIDS
 Neither do the Invisible Children
 Walking the night away to avoid being captured by a rogue army [globalism]

Neither does the baby elephant watching his community
 Be devastated for ivory [environmentalism]
 Neither does the Mexican child looking
 For fresh water

Neither does the Iraqi teenager dodging bombs [anti-Bush]
 Neither does the Appalachian infant killed
 By a boulder
 Dislodged
 Because the land was destabilized [environmentalism]
 ...
 Full poem [http://www.english.vt.edu/ here].

'''Our prayers continue to go out to the victims' families of the Virginia Tech massacre.'''

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-04-21T17:50:02Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* The Poem Criticism on the Main Page... */ constructive criticism

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-04-21T17:37:32Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: Have I somehow not been ''respectful of free speech''?

''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''

==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the "poem".
The poem is a feeble attempt
on the part of VTech's English Department
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]
to hang their liberal agenda on.
Andy's just calling them out on this.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}} This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::And this site's response (plastered all over the front page) isn't also political and self-serving? This smacks of '''hypocrisy''' somewhat. The lack of compassion that you're showing here is also rather distasteful. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]].

:Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? <s>Get real, mister.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, we don't allow baseless namecalling here. Calling anyone a "bigot" here, particularly when it is baseless, results in blocking of the account. In your case, I've warned you repeatedly about wasting the time of productive editors.

: Ideas do matter, and Conservapedia will continue to criticize liberal notions here. The poem on the main page is an example of that. The liberals here protest too much the valid criticism of that political, self-serving poem that is officially posted on the front page of the Virginia Tech website. Virginia Tech officials should hear criticism, and it is not just Conservapedia's main page that is criticism them.

: People who threaten to stifle Conservapedia's free speech by threatening it will obviously also find their accounts blocked. Wikipedia will welcome your political correctness with open arms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. '''LEAVE'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something. The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it. But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating. Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This may be news to you, but AmesG, Myk, WhatsGoingOn, and many others have spewed their own brand of hatred, and THAT is wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:And how are your responses here (and your threats of blocking, and erasure of their edits) not hatred? They post something that you disagree with, so you reply with personal attacks and slanders. Or don't you realise that it's '''wrong''' for you too? --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 13:14, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::First and foremost, I have neither slandered nor attacked anyone. Second, I blocked users who deliberately and willfully harmed or threatened to harn Conservapedia, and I have blocked users who refused to let a debate be a debate and instead allowed it to become hostile. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Namecalling against editors and/or Conservapedia is not allowed here, obviously.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please cite the examples of my ''own brand of hatred'', explain what was hateful about it and, if justified, I will try to mend my ways.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:::fair enough...the above line, mocking the "trustworthy encyclopedia". Your own mockery of this site is on about every posting you have made since you got here, and you could very well be taking steps to help make this a better encyclopedia, but you're not, are you? I would call that hatred. If you do not like this site, you are free to edit elsewhere. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:25, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Simply phrasing something as a question does not mean it is respectful of free speech here. I'm not inclined to block your account like the others, yet, but it's a close call. Name-calling against editors or Conservapedia in an attempt to stifle something will result in blocking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow. I thought you were for free speech, against censorship, and against 'stifling something.'
:::#13:12, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "AmesG (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (namecalling ("bigot"), also an attempt to stifle free speech by making a threat)
:::#13:07, 21 April 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs) blocked "Myk (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (for comment "hate spewing toy"; also may violate 90% talk/10% edit rule)
:::There is no commandment prohibiting 'namecalling' or 'hate spewing toy comments'. I dont know how your rules are more concise than wikipedia's when you have like five unwritten rules. [[User:NickJ10|NickJ10]] 13:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Dear [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]], have I somehow not been ''respectful of free speech''?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?

2007-04-21T17:11:43Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: where?

''Moved from [[talk:Main Page]]''

==The Poem Criticism on the Main Page...==

Really isn't needed. We shouldn't be pushing an agenda when 32 innocent lives were just taken. Wouldn't the space be better spent with prayers, and links to sites which will help students grieve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to go to great lengths to read something into the poem that isn't there. It also seems a bit tasteless under the circumstances. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 03:20, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Pathetic ... I would have thought caring christians as the admins claim to be would be above this sort of trash. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 03:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. The "Poem" is an ode to secularism and minimizes their demise by equating their tragic deaths with other causes and tragedies, involving one thousand times the number of people. Such tactics are often used by Holocaust denial groups, and is certainly not worthy of a supposedly great University. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Jesus Christ, now you compare them to holocaust deniers! You and Andy sicken me. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:24, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It's a crappy poem, but using it score cheap points is not in good taste.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::::{{remove personal remark|You little fanatics.}} You use a poem - admittedly poor, but written from the viewpoint of those writing it - in a feeble attempt to push your own agenda. It's appalling. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 07:22, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

In the notes in brackets
Andy seems to be critiquing the [[politics]] of the "poem".
The poem is a feeble attempt
on the part of VTech's English Department
to use the tragedy as a [[hook]]
to hang their liberal agenda on.
Andy's just calling them out on this.
--[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::*{{remove personal remark|Nematocyte, take a few days to wash your mouth out with soap. On me.}} This is a site on the Web, not a life and death situation. {{remove personal remark|If you are sick, try some Pepto.}} --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 07:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: The poem is a political, self-serving rant by a University that should have taken meaningful steps to prevent this massacre. The English Department that educated this killer should be scrutinized and this poem is the best place to start. Ideas do matter, and unless the mistakes are identified here than the sacrifice of innocent lives will inevitably and needlessly occur again. We owe to the victims and to future students to look critically at the University's role in allowing this massacre to happen.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:10, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::And this site's response (plastered all over the front page) isn't also political and self-serving? This smacks of '''hypocrisy''' somewhat. The lack of compassion that you're showing here is also rather distasteful. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 12:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

So, there is an student at VT english department who mourns his fellow students and decides to write a poem for them. Rest of the department honors the victims by publishing it on their web page. Then there is Conservapedia, which instead of mourning or respecting the feelings of the survivors starts to bash the poem as too liberal and not christian enough. This kinda sickens me. Im not even going to say anything more about the critisism itself, exept what does it matter, even if the writer was an liberal atheist, arent they allowed to mourn and write about their feelings? Do you really think she wrote it to be an political statement? What if others would act the same? If you where one of the survivors, would you like to read some atheist bashing your poem written to the wictims to be too christian or mayby pushing concervative agenda? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:47, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:The "poem" expressed many political opinions and very few feelings. I do not see how it could even be considered [[poetry]], other than the fact that it was formatted as [[blank verse]].

:Moreover, not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. The incident was the "expression" of feelings of rage by a very disturbed individual. Must we "approve" of his expression as an [[art]]istic act? <s>Get real, mister.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please tell me you just didnt try to say that we should criticise the people who don't mourn the way we want, as we would criticise the killers homicidal rampage? [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't say that. I said that not all "feelings" are worthy of unconditional respect and approval. Suppose someone hates you. Would you feel obliged to "validate" their feelings? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::This is an poem, written by an student who might have been there at the time of the shootings, very least she knew some of the people killed. You take her poem, try to find hidden liberal agenda from it, for example the mentioning of elephants and ivory... Give me a break, you really think she wrote the poem to help the wildlife?, and then without even knowing her religios views you bash her for not mentioning God or including a prayer. And then you justify it by saying that her attempt to show her grief isn't an opinnion worth respecting? That is just outrageous. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, re an earlier post on this, you're not entitled to degrade the quality of this site either... but anyways. This is not about how "good" the poem is. This is not about whether or not its "political." What this '''''is''''' about is how it's tacky & tasteless to start bashing VT for what they clearly see as an attempt to express their mourning! I don't care if it's political, or good poetry, but they deserve respect & compassion, not politicization. Criticizing them is another of Andy's attempts to score points off of a tragedy. I'll close by saying that making fun of grieving children is a new low, even for the Schlafly family.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:56, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Shame on Conservapedia for adding a critique to that poem. Can this ''Trustworthy Encylopedia'' sink much lower? Can Christian decency and compassion be denied in a more tasteless manner?
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 12:02, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Shame on Liberals for politicizing the VTech incident. Can they sink much lower than to exploit a senseless tragedy to score [[partisan]] points? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:08, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, the "liberals" aren't politicizing this! We're explicitly ''protesting'' the politicization! Now, Andy, either you pull this poem criticism from the main page, or I'll e-mail Virginia Tech's English department to tell them about your gross insensitivity, ignorance, and baseless hatred.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Kind of strange that the very ones who whine and complain about demanding free speech here would attempt to stifle it by protesting a self-serving poem. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:29, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

It's obviously legal to be a hateful bigot. I'm not saying it's illegal for Andy to put things like that on the front page. I'm saying that he should exercise his discretion as a compassionate (we hope) human being and limit his legal rights according to general rules of decency. There's a difference that many people misunderstand and apparently, Karajou, you're one of them. Andy, please pull the poem critique, or I will alert VT, and I bet they won't be happy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong answer, AmesG, and I've never been a bigot. From the continued posts I've seen from you over the past few months I cannot tell whether you're a highly educated man or a whining child who refuses to act like one...and now this "pull the poem or I'm going to tell" garbage. Go ahead and notify them. They're already in hot water for giving a lunatic a pass to kill. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:36, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Ed, you say that they express political points in their poem? I didn't know it was now overly liberal to mention that millions have died from AIDS, which is easily preventable. Or that those without fresh water could perhaps be given some. -{{unsigned|Hojimachong}}-12:34, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, Karajou, I think? It's the educated one. I'll give Andy a chance to reply first. I never called you a bigot, I called Andy a bigot.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: Ames, we don't allow baseless namecalling here. Calling anyone a "bigot" here, particularly when it is baseless, results in blocking of the account. In your case, I've warned you repeatedly about wasting the time of productive editors.

: Ideas do matter, and Conservapedia will continue to criticize liberal notions here. The poem on the main page is an example of that. The liberals here protest too much the valid criticism of that political, self-serving poem that is officially posted on the front page of the Virginia Tech website. Virginia Tech officials should hear criticism, and it is not just Conservapedia's main page that is criticism them.

: People who threaten to stifle Conservapedia's free speech by threatening it will obviously also find their accounts blocked. Wikipedia will welcome your political correctness with open arms.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:04, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, AmesG, I'm going to call you a four-letter word, and that word is '''GONE''', as in I want you to pack up and leave this site. I'm fed up with your self-serving rants, your attitude, your high-and-mighty self righteousness, your repeated attempts to force an alien ideology down our throats, and the babyish name-calling when you don't get your way. '''LEAVE'''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:44, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This is disgusting. [[User:RDre|RDre]] 12:51, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

:::This is the most disgusting thing I've seen printed on this site, and that is saying something. The fact that Andy could print something like that is understandable... he has his agenda to push and doesn't care who gets pushed with it. But the fact that "Christians" like Ed Poor, TK, and Karajou would so quickly jump to his defense is nauseating. Have fun with your little hate spewing toy. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 12:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

This may be news to you, but AmesG, Myk, WhatsGoingOn, and many others have spewed their own brand of hatred, and THAT is wrong. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:07, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please cite the examples of my ''own brand of hatred'', explain what was hateful about it and, if justified, I will try to mend my ways.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Seung-Hui Cho

2007-04-20T10:58:09Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: Cause of Massacre?

We should probably mention (somewhere) that Chinese, Japanese and Korean names go in [family, given] order. So that "Mr. Cho" is would be called Seung-Hui by his parents or close friends (not this this kid had any close friends, but ...) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:50, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:For the purposes of the article, I believe the (first, last) combination will be searched much more, and as the Anglicized version, can stand to stay on Conservapedia. I don't have a grasp of east Asian languages, though. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think it should go back to Seung-Hui Cho, given that the source cited, and most of the news, calls him that. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 19:55, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::What news are you looking at, Colin? I've only seen Cho Seung-Hui on CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and the Today show :/. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:56, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at the source the article cites. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Either way, a redirect can be set up. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:56, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==32 fellow students?==

I think at least one of the casualties was a professor, if not more. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:Fixed. You're right, Dan, one was an Israeli-American. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

== New article? ==

Perhaps one article on the shooting qua the shooting - with timelines, victims, etc, and this one on the human-piece-of-crap (sorry, a little editorialisation there) that did it? [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Overlooked?==

They have been trying to get stricter gun laws in Virginia, as they don't keep records on bought shotguns, rifles or private handguns. And they don't check the amount of guns bought against recent crime waves. But Bush vetoed the decision.

Funny this doesn't seem to be widely known.

==Other mass murderers==

This case reminds me of [[Gavin de Becker]]'s account of the postal worker who (the media said) "suddenly" went besersk and "without warning" killed several co-workers. The media account was wrong, of course. The postal worker had shown anti-social signs for '''years''' before the incident. But everyone was afraid of the legal repercussions of dismissing him. I'll have to look it up, I have the book in a box somewhere. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:39, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:The sad truth is that hind sight is 20-20. It's nearly impossible to tell the difference between a potential psycho and a harmless crank until it's too late. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:42, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Gavin de Becker disagrees with you.
::*Attackers do not “just snap,” but progress from forming an idea, to planning an attack, to gathering weapons. This process can happen quickly, but sometimes the planning or gathering weapons are discoverable. See [[Mosaic threat assessment method]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Removal of some details==
I thought those details were useful, why did you get rid of all that? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Tell me what purpose they serve. Do they explain why he did it? Do they show a pattern, or an indication of a larger problem? This is not Eyewitness News ("details at ten!"), and we do not need to generate an audience. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Disagree--people come here for encyclopedic content. Details are encyclopedic. Why remove any of his personal history or the details surrounding his crime? Further, if this topic were less-vulgar, we would make sure to stuff the page with detail (I assume). Why not continue that practice here? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd love to see some more information about his personal history, especially anything that would shed light on why he would hurt himself or others. As for the crimes he committed in Virginia, perhaps on article on the day's events would be good to start. Shall we call it [[Virginia Tech shootings]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. Thanks [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Signs of disturbance==

:he had been communicating with via instant messenger under the pseudonym Question Mark.

Didn't he sign a questionnaire with just a question mark? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:50, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Christain==
where does the NPR article mention his religious affiliation?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Zealot ==

Not in the article but the front page. I'm wondering if Zealot is actually the word for him. I'm not even disputing anti-christian (although I will point out that he killed at least one jew, which I would read as him being sort of indiscriminate) but since it was his own religion even that seems more anti-self, like alot of his morbid writings. Also... don't Zealots... I dunno, talk to people? Aren't they kind of known for not being able to shut up? My thesaurus has Advocate, Drumbeater, Dogmatist... just saying that word doesnt really describe him accurately. --[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:02, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== Cause of Massacre? ==

[[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No.1 ''Everything you post must be true and verifiable. '' and No.2 ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry'' This article contains the sentense ''The massacre was evidently caused by the killer's intensely anti-Christian, and perhaps anti-American, views.'' The source gives no reason for the massacre. The above contravenes [[Conservapedia:Commandments]]. When is the Trustwothy Encyclopedia going to get trustworthy? [[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:58, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Agriculture

2007-04-19T15:45:59Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: timescale

'''Agriculture''' is the intentional growing of plants for human use.

Agricultural societies appeared in several widely separated parts of Old and New World between about 10,000 to 5000 years ago. Most human populations had become dependent on agriculture some 2,000 years ago <ref>http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/agorigin.htm</ref>.

Various amounts of care are involved, from little more than scattering [[seed]]s and later checking for a [[harvest]], to large scale industrial agriculture, where thousands of [[acre]]s are devoted to growing one [[crop]], using carefully bred and selected seeds, highly processed [[man-made]] [[fertilizer]]s, and a variety of [[pesticide]]s.

The plants themselves have been selectively bred since the early days of agriculture for many characteristics, including [[fruit]] size and yield, [[disease]] and [[pest]] resistance, [[drought]] or wetness tolerance - in fact, any trait that could be imagined to be useful.

While it is immediately obvious that the first purpose for growing domesticated plants is to provide a stable [[food]] supply, we also grow plants for fibers to make [[clothing]], to press for oil, or to make into [[paper]]. Plants are also grown for real or perceived medicinal properties, like [[tobacco]] or poppies.

By tying a community to the location where its crops are planted, and making the production and storage of surpluses possible, agriculture led to the development of [[village]]s and [[city|cities]], and the need for, invention, and development of [[civilization]] itself.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Technology]]

Conservapedia:Would the repeal of gun control laws make incidents like the shooting at Virginia Tech less likely to occur?

2007-04-19T10:12:38Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: or deranged mind?

{{debate}}

I hope it's not too early to say this, but I'm worried that if it happened at my campus, the same thing would happen, and that it might even be worse, because there are signs '''everywhere''' saying that you can't have guns. Also, since even the police officers did not catch the shooter until two hours after he started, it's not a good enough argument to say, oh, the police can have them. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:18, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: This debate will inevitably begin, so let's have it in a way that is respectful of the mourning.

: I agree with Dan: the police are not going to stop this soon enough. I'd like to see armed Resident Advisors myself.

: Was the gunman on drugs? Into hard-core pornography? Human beings do not ordinarily do these things unless under some evil influence. I hope the media report this honestly. Most people don't realize that high school shooters are usually on drugs, and Scott Peterson was into hard-core pornography.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Not all drugs cause problems; the worst crime committed by pot-heads is Twinkie theft. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

'''NO'''
I would prefer to just outlaw guns or very strictly control them. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That won't automatically make all guns cease to exist. This guy certainly got his hands on one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, here is some statistics to concider: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita What do people think, the countryes at top have lots of guns available and not much control over it, or they have strict guncontroll laws and few guns available? Think the answer is obvious, and so is the answer to question which would be the way to go if one wants to limit murders with firearms. There are of course lots of other reasons behind the amount of killings with guns than just the availability, allso guns arent the only way to kill people. Alltho the country i live in is quite low on this chart, its quite high on the murders done. But its only obvious that more controll there is on guns and less there is of them, less there will allso be killings with them. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 15:44, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's ban all guns right now and see what happens. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:39, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually, i would be willing to go that far. There are of course some legimit hobbyes that include firearms and total ban isnt likely, but i really like the current policy on my country. Here one can get firearms for hunting after doing a test for your hunting licence. If you want a gun for target practice, one practically needs to start from small caliber weapons like .22 and join a gun club. And offcourse one cant have any serious crimes on his police record. No licenses are given for weapons meant for selfprotection outside law enforcment and some other security related jobs. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I doubt it. Honestly, it's important for the people to be armed, in the incident that they have to defend themselves, be it from other people or the state.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:48, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::If you took a look at the statistics i provided, i think you would have noticed that the amount of guns there was amongst the general population certainly didnt make it less likely to get murdered by gunfire, if anything, it made it more propable. In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life, i even have personal experience on this subject. Allso, do you think it would matter in the least that people own 9mm pistols and stuff like that if everything changed so drasticly that United states would become and dictatorship? We dont live in the 1800:s anymore. You dont build up army out of civilians with civilian weaponry. Who controls the army controls the country. Only ones who use those easy to get weapons to "defend their country" are nutjobs who do it in times like these murdering people in their psychosis. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 22:22, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::The notion is more theoretical than practical. Honestly, the principle is that the people should be able to create a militia if the need arises to do so. Removing the ability to own firearms would hamper their ability to do so. And honestly, it's about the fact that the populous of a nation is always stronger than it's government. A government with no people is a government not long for this world.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: "In my opinnion carrying a gun around for selfdefense is more likely to get you killed than to save your life". Where in the world is your evidence for this? This is entirely false and untrue. 95% of the time the mere presence of a firearm that is drawn on an intruder is enough to frighten them away. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: PS: Timppeli, your statistics [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita here] are merely for murders with guns. What about the total crime rate of each of these countries, including non-gun crimes? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 22:33, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: You can change the crime statistics wanted from the dropbox in the upper right part of the page, for example here are murder statistics in general by countryes: [http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita] [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 23:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

'''No''' - Taking the micro view, I had a glance through the history of US spree killings I could remember, and not a single one of them was stopped by an armed civilian. The outcomes were divided among shooter escaped, shooter arrested by police, shooter shot and killed by police and shooter killed by self inflicted bullet wound, with the latter being by far the most common. While there is perhaps a certain logic in knowing that stores are guarded by armed men helps prevent robbery, but spree killings are a different crime entirely. The shooter generally has little concern for their own safety, and won't hesitate to shoot anyone who even looks like they threaten them.

There is something wrong with a society where children must be searched in the schools to prevent them bringing blades and handguns, and armed security officers patrol the halls. I don't think this problem is likely to be fixed by increasing the availability of lethal weapons. Lets face it, spree killing is only possible where guns are readily accessible. You simply can't can't do this sort of thing with a knife or any other hand weapon. The fact that shootings like this occur on a regular basis perhaps should make you reconsider the policy of universal access to firearms. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 06:33, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to say I think that if there were MORE guns, things like this would happen LESS often. Imagine if, whenever somebody tried to pull something like this, he got gunned down after he fired his first shot. --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's interesting that you see single figure of kids at most a year in British Schools. And coincidentally, Guns are illegal in this country.

At the risk of sounding inflammatory, this is a lame and inappropriate place for a "debate". I thought this was an "encyclopedia" site? rexgoliath.

'''NO''' Even if there were fewer gun control laws, I cannot imagine, nor would I want to imagine, a college campus that would allow students to carry guns on campus. I know that my daughter's school does not allow them.

Even if we assume that the campus would allow guns, and a significant number of students were packing, it might reduce the number of dead in a situation like this, but at what cost. College dorms are a melting pot of hormones, alcohol, immaturity and conflicting cultures. How many other deaths would we have to offset the possible lives saved here? [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 13:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the fantasy that someone will come in to kill people in a classroom and another student will kill them first is so far-fetched I really can't explain it. Suffice it to say, with a ton of guns on campus I would surely expect a few innocent bystanders to get killed first. How many of those are acceptable in that prior analogy? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Pornography's Role!?==
This is a true national tragedy. I have to say, though, that I have yet to see porn lead to shooting violence, Andy.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

: The media rarely mention pornography's role, even when it is there (as it usually is). Don't you think it might have played a role in the sick massacre of the Amish children?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::Alternately, the media could not mention it because there is no connection. Hmmm. Do you have a good citation on how porn leads to violence? Keep in mind the difference between causation and correlation...-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, I think some people on this site have problems distinguishing between causation and correlation. But honestly, I think it's better just to let people believe whatever makes them happiest. So long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't really care what they do or think.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Except, quite obviously in light of today, people are being hurt. A civilized society tries to look at the underlying causes and address them. Drugs and pornography are the common denominator to many vicious crimes. You won't read about this, but ask someone knowledgeable in law enforcement.

Um, might the cause of gun violence be...GUNS? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:: How many people here knew that Scott Peterson was addicted on hardcore pornography? That was under-publicized.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, drugs are already a controlled substance, I'm not denying that they have an effect on the people. I think what I'm questioning is pornography's effect. I think porn might be a release for a more deep seated psychological issue. Sociopaths don't need a reason to kill. Thats what they do.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:16, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::nobody is born a sociopath.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Sociopathy is a mental disorder. How can you not be born that way? It might be incited, but you're predisposed. I'm sure there's an environmental effect, but I think that your mind plays a part too.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 23:25, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Andy, homespun wisdom - "ask someone knowledgeable..." - is no substitute for actual evidence. Also, again, you offered a correlation, not a causation. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 23:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Might the cause of gun violence be guns? I know, I know, guns are only dangerous when used for their intended purpose. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 23:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::What about car violence? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:00, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::when is the last time a gun committed a crime by itself?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::When is the last time a nuclear warhead detonated itself? Hey, if you outlaw nukes, only outlaws will have nukes! [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::The natural conclusion of the "this may have been caused by porn: argument goes like this:
:::#Many sociopaths like hardcore pornography.
:::#So, many sociopaths also like pizza.
:::#That's ridiculous, lots of people like pizza and they don't commit mass murder.
:::#Well, lots of people like hardcore pornography and ''they'' don't commit mass murder either.

WELL PUT

:::Drugs is another story, but the same reasoning applies. Do drugs turn someone into a sociopath? We have no evidence that they do, but they can surely cloud the judgement of someone enough that they might do such a thing. On the face of it, this does not seem like a killing spree set off by a drug addled brain. This took time and preparation. And guns and ammo. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:06, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I think US should have stricter laws controlling time and preparation.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::I'll point out that a lot of those sociopaths probably watched Tom&Jerry cartoons when they were kids. And as is apparent to everyone, Tom&Jerry is excessively violent. I think someone should look into that. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 08:53, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Ted Bundy directly blamed hardcore pornography for his murder spree shortly before his execution. There's a difference between hardcore porn and regular porn. Nobody's arguing that everybody who reads ''Playboy'' is at risk of violence. By the way, I wrote a letter to the editor to my school newspaper putting forth my original argument above. If they print it I'll link to it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Again, Ted Bundy was a sociopath. Sociopaths kill without volition or reason. They cannot feel remorse or guilt for their actions. If you read stuff by Ted Bundy, you understand that the man never felt any remorse for the poor women he killed.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:31, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't doubt that he was. I wonder if pornography can, in some cases, bring some of the primal urges out of said sociopaths. I don't honestly know. I'm only speculating. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 04:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:People are always looking for excuses for a murderer's actions, blaming movies, video games, and now porn (laughable on it's own). It's ridiculous, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're disturbed then sure they can't tell fake from reality, but come on, you can't blame any of the above items. You can't make something a scapegoat when 99.9% of the population is viewing this stuff and not going out on a killing spree.
:And, on the gun control topic, taking away the right to bear arms will only stop those who are law abiding citizens from having guns. Criminals will still manage to get them and use them. All taking them away would do is make it easier for the bad guys. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 08:45, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to get in further trouble because I am in violation of the 90/10 rule, but please, can we give people time to grieve before this is discussed. Please. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know every time I watch some hardcore porn, I get this intense urging to go commit violent acts, don't y'all? :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 16:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Perhaps you don't think Scott Peterson's murders were violent acts??? Law enforcements officers will tell you, if you care to ask, that pornography is what they find when they search criminals' homes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I do not think Scott Peterson was given a fair trial and was wrongfully incarcerated, given no proof of his guilt and only circumstantial evidence at best. I don't know whether he he's guilty or not; if he did commit murder, then yes, his acts were violent (as are most, if not all, murders). Regardless, I'm sure that searching many people's homes would result in finding pornography. It's hard to think that such a huge industry would only be supported by criminals. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 17:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That seems like an ad hoc ergo propter hoc argument. Do most people who look at porn perform criminal acts, or are most criminal acts comitted by people who also look at porn? Interesting. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: Most people period look at porn. If I were to give you 100 random american males of ages 18-40, I believe you'd struggle to select five of them that had never ever seen hardcore porn. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:26, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

There's a difference between having seen it before and making a pattern of seeking out more and more extreme pornography. And even most people who do that aren't going to be violent. I'm not arguing that, either. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Intresting, after reading some of the comments, i would like to make the claim that watching hardcore porn actually makes one more liable to become contributor in Conservapedia. Ill back my claim by stating that if we would search the hard drives of the contributors here, i bet we would find some porn in most cases. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 17:51, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Do you think a search of the Virginia Tech killer's computer will likely turn up hardcore pornography? Do you think the college or police will tell the public if it does? My answers: yes to the first and probably no to the second. The mainstream media downplays or censors the connection of pornography with criminals, as it did in Scott Peterson's case. Less than 1% of the stories about Scott Peterson revealed that he was a porn addict.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:: You people are foul for turning this tragedy into a political football. What in the hell is the matter with you? Seriously, you should be on meds. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 18:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Im quite sure that he had some hardcore porn on his posession, im allso quite sure it was because he was a young male without a girlfriend, and had nothing to do with him being psycopath killer. The claim i made before is just as valid as the connection between pornography and violent mass murders. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:34, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Seriously, there's a difference between criminals being in possession of porn, and it causing their crime. Seriously, I would bet that ''most'' people who possess porn are ''not'' criminals. --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 19:43, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Folks, this killer was a "loner" who likely spent his time on the computer, and on pornography sites. Day in and day out. Look at his hard drive, we can find out in an hour what this guy's daily pattern of information and recreation was. And I'll tell you the answer now: pornography day in and day out. Does that have an effect? You bet it does. It desensitized him, made him more withdrawn, and made him view others like objects rather than the people they are (were).

::: From our front page: "The killer "was a loner, and we're having difficulty finding information about him," school spokesman Larry Hincker said." What a joke that statement by the school is. Within 60 minutes they can find out everything they need to know from his hard drive. They should tell the world so we can learn from this tragedy and not just wait until it happens again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:22, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: Well said! --[[User:Save Our Values|Save Our Values]] 04:44, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::: His former roommates are conducting interviews. They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend. Weird.... And it's just a wee bit hypocritical to say that porn is bad and guns are good. Honestly, what purpose does an AK in civilian ownership serve? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Hoji said, "They say he was a loner who stalked women, and had an imaginary girlfriend." That's behavior of a porno addict, just as drunk driving is behavior of an alcoholic. Sure, it's the driving that causes the harm, but so does the alcohol. Let's not deny the effect of spending day and night on computer pornography. It's not good for him, and not good for his victims either.

:::: The analogy to guns does not hold, because guns help save more lives than are lost. It would have been helpful to have some armed teachers or faculty around to stop this killer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Andy, would you say that Harry Potter caused the VT massacre too? For the love of... you're a lawyer. Go back to Torts. Andy, look at issues of attenuated causation, causation-in-fact, et al. I'll make articles for you to reference if you need them. But porn does not cause murder. What would (then-) Judge Cardozo say to Ms. Palsgraf?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: I guess Ames doesn't think alcohol causes any deaths either. Or drugs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:54, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

You and I both know the difference, and it's sad to even have to suggest it. Alcohol & drugs cause loss of control. Pornography... does not.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:May I add, Andy, that if you ever have a lawsuit like that, make sure to tell me when. If you file in New York, I'll definitely come watch. It's also worth the NJ Transit ride if you file it in Jersey. I want to see this.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:: I'm not saying that litigation is the answer. At this point, I'm only asking for honest reporting of the news. Why won't the police tell us what was on the killer's hard drive????--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:58, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not asking for litigation either. I'm just saying, no-one would believe a causal link except push-button activists looking for a new "issue." Specifically, a judge wouldn't believe a link, nor would a jury. They don't report it because it's irrelevant! Do they report, "suspect had eaten an enchilada two days before - repeat, eaten an enchilada"? No, because it ''doesn't matter''!-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Is this a Joke?==
Are you really asking did porn have something to do with this? If someone--anyone--can give a good reason for owning a handgun, I'd love to hear it. You can't hunt with them, there's no target you need to shoot that you can't with a rifle, and basically you've provided a great means for a family member to kill themselves, or you. So why? Why not get rid of them? And yes, if we ban them tomorrow there will still be guns, but that is a "throw up the hands" answer to a problem. So many reactions to this question are speculative. "But what if...? But then...?" It's garbage. We know what happens by making guns more easy to obtain than a driver's license, now let's do something about it. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT) {{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#cc0000 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=[[Image:National Rifle Association logo.png|65px]] |info=This user wishes guns would be illegal.}} [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:08, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll give you a good reason, it's called the second amendment, in case you havent herd of it. I'm 15 and I've herd of it. It says: "An organised malitia being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed".

That means were allowed to have handguns you idiot!
--thebigjimmer

To thebigjimmer: Please refrain from calling people idiots because they don't share your opinnion. If you look at the discussion going on, its not about what the current law says on carrying guns, its about how should it be changed or should it stay as it is. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 16:07, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've 'herd' of it. But being allowed to do something is not the same thing as needing to do something and private ownership is not the same thing as a 'malitia'. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 16:01, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please don't call me an ''"idiot"'' while barraging me with language like "organised" instead of organized, "maltita" instead of militia, "havent" instead of haven't, "were" instead of we're and "herd" instead of heard. Now, as for the second amendment, I might also point out that this is an [[addendum]] to the [[constitution]] and thus can be changed. See the 18th amendment if you don't believe me. Further, my point is that if we can keep guns out of the hands of people who can't--say--use the language precisely, then we might all be a little safer. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:04, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I dont think it is wise to debate changes to the Bill of Rights. Where would the changes end? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I can appreciate that, but we live in a very different world than we did back then. The world of the pioneers was one in which people may only meet a few hundred folks in their lifetime. Today, we can easily meet thousands. Add to that the undeniably closer proximity to one another and you can start to see why having a lethal weapon in just anybody's hands is a bad idea. At least, it is to me. I think we shouldn't just ban them (although I'm fine with that) but if we were to be more responsible and take ownership of this problem we could do some real good. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:18, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I understand what you are saying, but i have to say i disagree. also, what do you mean when you say "be more responsible and take ownership of this problem" how is this to be done?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::I think we like to think more guns are the answer to increasing gun violence. By "taking ownership" (a poor phrase, I admit) I meant that we should first admit that unrestrained sales of handguns and weaponry is ill-advised at best and unconscionably reckless at worst. How many people have to die before we say as a people, I don't want to watch more people die? I mean, is there really a good reason to have handguns? I point this out because it seems the only thing they are created for is anti-personnel use. Is there one good thing you can do with a handgun you can't do with a rifle--except hide it? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Obviously no one wants handguns in the hands of people who will abuse them, but also i think obviously they are guarenteed under the Bill of Rights. Further restraints on sales will most likely not do any good, seeing that most ill-used handguns are either stolen of bought illegaly. And handguns are a great way to relieve stress.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

::It's a worthy subject for debate, but I don't think it's as obvious as you think. I understand the opposing viewpoint, but there's a reasonable case to be made that the words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " are not ambiguous. At the time of writing the Bill of Rights, citizen-organized militias were a necessary part of a functioning national army. Even through the Civil War, whole companies would be comprised of the men of a town or neighborhood.

::We don't run our military that way anymore. There's no expectation that the men of, say, Valdosta, Georgia should contribute a company of men to the war in Iraq, and in fact they'd be prevented from trying to join the operations there if they did. A well-regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state."

::Fun question that doesn't directly relate: look at the war in Iraq. Which side is fielding a bunch of loosely-organized militias who have to secure their arms on the down-low, and do you believe that they are "secur[ing] a free state?"[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:10, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::true, but I and others[http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html] still think that the ammendment was indeed created for the purpose of securing individual rights. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:I appreciate that as well, but saying "a ban tomorrow does nothing today" does not solve the problem so much as foment it. IMO [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::I dont understand. could you rephrase? English is my second language!![[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

:::Okay mister, you don't need to insult my little brother's intelligence just because of a few typing errors. I can guarantee, that he is more intelligent than you. Most my family of 16 recieved 4.0', and scored in the thirties on thier ACT, and are currently getting their doctorate in one field or another. And asking him not to call you an idiot, and then insulting his intelligence is a little hypocritical. Now on the issue on hand guns, you can hunt with them (deer). Your problem is that you look at a gun as a weapon, when it really is a tool. There are more useful things that can be done with guns than harmful. A hammer is a tool, and people can kill each other with those. So why not ban them as well. You think that eliminating guns will stop killing. Well no matter what you do people are going to kill each other. They did before there were guns, and they still will once guns have disappeared. Its a fact of life. All in all you should get your facts straight before you go flaunting your opinions. Buying a gun is much harder than getting your drivers license, I Know. And in conclusion, loud mouthed hippy liberals (like you), who think that they have the answeres to all of lifes questions are really just a drag on the character of the country and the whole human race for that matter. {{unsigned|thebigjimmer}}

:::: We loud mouthed hippy liberals (like me), would like to point out, that while nerve gas might be nice tool to get rid of the bugs in ones house, it dosen't mean it should be available to all. How many people you think this mass murderer would have killed if he could have gotten nerve gass? how many did he now kill with his guns, and how many would he have killed with an hammer? Making guns harder to get dosen't mean one couldn't practice hunting or shooting, most of those who are in favour of stricter gun control laws don't want to ban guns all together. Quite many are even willing to let people have some guns for self-defence. But for example i do think that current large number of guns around and the easy availability are an risk for the safety of most. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:25, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Amen, Jimmer.

What's wrong with four loud mouthed hippies in a buick going off a cliff?

A buick usually seats five.

:::: About the VT incident... one professor who was killed mercilessly at the hands of the gunman stood in the doorway of his classroom to protect his students from him. If that professor had a gun the outcome of this whole incident would have been a lot different. The professor would be a hero. Can't you guys see that this is the case? Arm the good-guys and disarm the bad-guys. The bad-guys will ALWAYS have guns. What can outlawing guns possibly do? Nothing. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:32, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::And that professor was an Israeli.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 19:35, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: And if people would carry guns around in schools, how many you think would die every year in gun accidents, gang fights or by angry students? Besides, as horrible as these sensles massacres in schools are, they are still very small part of the whole picture. What could have saved the situation, would have been an armed guard at the campus. But that costs money, not sure how many shcool would be willing to pay for one. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 20:02, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I do not think much of any people would die from gun accidents in schools. Gang fights? Gangs already have guns. Gangs would actually probably have a hard time surviving. Angry students? The angry students are the people who are doing these massacres. The guy who did this one was '''''very''''' angry about a lot of things. Also, about the armed guard thing... VT has an entire '''''armed''''' police department. Was that able to solve the problem? NO. Saying that law enforcement is the answer to these things is a complete joke. If you where cornered in a room by a guy in a black ski-mask pointing a gun at your head what would you do? Ask him to hold on while you call the cops? If this is what you're planning to do I would advise you not to, it's not going to work. The cost of arming faculty would be '''''much''''' less than paying for a police department. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 20:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Then what do you do with disgruntled faculty, CPWebmaster, who already have a gun then? Arm the students to check the faculty? Arm the janitors to keep them all in line?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 20:44, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

: Take a state that has very loose gun-control, like Arizona. Is it becoming a problem keeping everyone in check? No. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:13, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite? Or alternately, take a country with very tight gun control laws. How's their per capita gun crime rate? Hint - it's wayyyy down.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:14, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

We could always give everyone their own nuclear weapon. That would lower the crime-rate for sure! ...aside from the occasional city wiped off the face of the Earth. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:51, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this conversation about Porn? Is someone here on an agenda to make political capital out of this? There has been no report the guy was into porn and even if he was it would have been better if he'd stayed at home with his porn than picked up his guns and gone on a rampage. The only new thing we've learned about him is this cryptic message of 'Ismail Ax' on his arm http://www.nypost.com/seven/04172007/news/nationalnews/va__tech_killer_revealed_nationalnews_.htm?page=0 . That strikes me as some kind of religious statement but I'm not qualified to say whether it's Christian, Muslim, something else or one of the weird cults that pervert mainstream religion. Is anyone here saying religion is to blame. I hope not but it's more in the frame than porn. --[[User:Commandment9|Commandment9]] 16:35, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:: In the video he compares himself to Jesus and news reports said his parents were deeply religious and his mother in particular had urged him to be more involved in the church. Nothing so far about pornography. Must be left wing bias. 21:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Really==
It's not like everybody in university is packing heat. If you outlaw guns, somebody will still find a way. We had a big shooting here in Canada at École Polytechnique in Montreal back in the 80s that resulted in the death of a number of women. The gunman had a problem with feminists, and he decided to walk in and shoot a bunch of them. Despite our gun control laws, people still died from gun violence. It is however, not so widespread. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:42, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::Montreal has had 3 school massacres, the École Polytechnique massacre in 1989, the Concordia University massacre in 1992, and the Dawson College shooting in 2006. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 12:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::: This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the faculty, or even the students, of each of these schools carried guns around? The answer, no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 19:48, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I think you're countering one extreme (no guns) with another (guns for all). And neither one is desirable on a campus. I think the truth is this - two of these deaths were unavoidable; the two in the dorm. Had the university acted properly, the buildings would have been locked down. And we wouldn't be having this conversation.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 20:59, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: I'm not debating "guns for all." I'm merely stating a '''fact'''. If the students were armed there would have been no massacre. [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 21:03, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
Maybe not today. But tomorrow, or the next day.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 21:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I worry though, about temptations and human error. If people have guns, I think they become more inclined to use them. Now, that might apply to a small percent of people, but if you arm everyone, you're still dealing with a large group of people. As for prevention, what happens if in the fear of the shooting, the person trying to defend everyone accidentally misses with a shot and kills a fellow classmate or student. Now that person is a murderer.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 21:40, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Perspective==

The flag at my town hall was at half mast today (and it's not because most of our bridges washed out yesterday). 33 innocent people are dead. Talk radio is aflame with irrelevancies. And this page, linked from the front of conservapedia, is full of foolish and sometimes ignorant political diatribe. How about a week of silence and respect before the hacking of issues starts? Those poor people... [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, and Mr. Schlafly Esq., I am disappointed in your choice of topics to "Participate in our discussion of this shooting". What happened to "help us mourn the unfortunate", not a political debate topic? I would expect, following that link, to leave feeling humbled at our vulnerability, generous of spirit, and full of remembrance for the victims. Not finding that here. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:23, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

==Questions on Front Page==

"Why wasn't he disciplined before this could happen? And why was he still in college at age 23?"

I dunno about the appropriateness of these questions. Of course hindsight is 20/20, but it makes us sound foolish to suggest '''discipline''' for writing violent plays. In retrospect, yeah, probably more look into those would have been better, but it just takes us back to the 20/20 hindsight argument. Also, you can't discipline someone for making dark creative writing. You can perhaps suggest counseling, but not discipline. Also, what does his being 23 have to do with anything? I have many good friends on my campus that are in their mid-late 20's. Heck, a good friend of mine just graduated last semester...at 27.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:27, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe he skipped a year or two? Got in late? Not everyone goes straight to college from highschool. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:11, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

According to NPR, his advisor contacted the local police, the school counciling service, and others regaurding his disturbing work, but was told they couldn't do anything unless he made an oblique threat. And it's very common to graduate at 23 or later (the shooter was scheduled to graduate in a matter of weeks). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:31, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Porn, Guns and Instant Politicization: Pure America==

A stat I've heard mentioned a million times today in support of gun ownership is "crime has fallen steadily in the past 15 years as gun ownership has increased." Ok, but porn availability and consumption has increased at a far greater rate than gun ownership over this same period. Mr. Schlafly, your argument is easily disproven. You shouldn't try to heap all of the sins of the world at the step of such violence. Wish well to those who have suffered and keep your politics in your pants for a few weeks.
--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

When tragedy strikes, you don't just sit and think "How sad. Hope it doesn't happen again". No. You look at what went wrong, and directly try to prevent it from ever happening again. Your comment about keeping one's politics in pants is disingenuous. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:40, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ok, DanH. What I said is political I suppose, but I felt compelled to speak against ridiculous politicization. To speculate that porn drives people to kill is ridiculous. I had to reply by disproving what ASchlafly typed earlier.--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:In my limited experience, the main bad side effects of pornography are a distorted view of the opposite sex and spending too much time on the Internet, not murderous rampages. But, maybe Aschlafly knows something I don't, and ISN'T just using a terrible tragedy as an excuse to try to drive one of his pet [[scapegoats]] out of the village again. --[[User:VVV|VVV]] 02:49, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

This is quite insane. I guess ASchlafly has some arrestive power if he can turn the focus of this discussion to pornography. I've said all that I can. If what I have said makes no more sense than ASchlafly's connection between porn and murderous rampages, then I have failed (or maybe you didn't want to listen to begin with).--[[User:BillyC|BillyC]] 02:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Shooter's Computer ==

The main page of Conservapedia mentioned that police 'still' have not released what was on the shooter's computer. It's been two days! They have to read everything, restore deleted files, read his e-mails...have some patience...in investigations like this, we might not hear anything for months. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with this. This is a police investigation, it make take some time for details to come out. Furthermore, if there's nothing there, why would it matter? Is it the media's responsibility to disseminate every bit of info? That's a tough question, which I don't know the correct answer to (or if there is a correct answer). [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 11:25, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== (Deleted my comment here; please ignore) ==

Just a thought. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 08:55, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I pray to God that you're trying to be funny. I think Chairman Mao had a similiar plan. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 09:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, yes. That obviously didn't come across quite how I meant it to. --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, J that was truly abhorrent without actually being useful. I will point out that liberals have not said things this devisive in kind. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:02, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*User has been warned on their talk page. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:14, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, TK [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:21, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==Why is this about [[pornography]] again?==

I realize that for people who are afraid pornography is a corrupting influence on society, seeing it as the root cause of this young man's violence is easy. However, for Andy to claim, as he does above, that this guy watched porn "all day long" or whatever is ridiculous speculation before we know anything. In fairness to his POV, he has a 50/50 chance of being right so why not make the claim. No one remembers when we're wrong, but if we're right.... And to "thebigjimmer" it might also be worth mentioning that the supreme court has never decided that individuals have a right to bear arms outside of service in a militia. I don't care for this histrionic "my family has Pee-aych-dees" either. You can still be wrong and have an advanced degree. Look at some of the admins on this site. :) [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:00, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Social scientists have found a link between hard-core pornography and anti-social acts. [[Correlation is not causation]], but it shows you where to start looking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:16, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Let's Make America a 'Sad-Free Zone'! ... ==

From the attacks of 9/11 to Monday's school shooting, after every mass murder there is an overwhelming urge to "do something" to prevent a similar attack.

But since Adam ate the apple and let evil into the world, deranged individuals have existed.

Most of the time they can't be locked up until it's too late. It's not against the law to be crazy -- in some jurisdictions it actually makes you more viable as a candidate for public office.

It's certainly not against the law to be an unsociable loner. If it were, Ralph Nader would be behind bars right now, where he belongs. Mass murder is often the first serious crime unbalanced individuals are caught committing -- as appears to be in the case of the Virginia Tech shooter.

The best we can do is enact policies that will reduce the death toll when these acts of carnage occur, as they will in a free and open society of 300 million people, most of whom have cable TV.

Only one policy has ever been shown to deter mass murder: concealed-carry laws. In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect.

And the effect was not insignificant. States that allowed citizens to carry concealed handguns reduced multiple-shooting attacks by 60 percent and reduced the death and injury from these attacks by nearly 80 percent.

Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back. The reason schools are consistently popular targets for mass murderers is precisely because of all the idiotic "Gun-Free School Zone" laws.

From the people who brought you "zero tolerance," I present the Gun-Free Zone! Yippee! Problem solved! Bam! Bam! Everybody down! Hey, how did that deranged loner get a gun into this Gun-Free Zone?

It isn't the angst of adolescence. Plenty of school shootings have been committed by adults with absolutely no reason to be at the school, such as Laurie Dann, who shot up the Hubbard Woods Elementary School in Winnetka, Ill., in 1988; Patrick Purdy, who opened fire on children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Calif., in 1989; and Charles Carl Roberts, who murdered five schoolgirls at an Amish school in Lancaster County, Pa., last year.

Oh by the way, the other major "Gun-Free Zone" in America is the post office.

But instantly, on the day of the shooting at Virginia Tech, the media were already promoting gun control and pre-emptively denouncing right-wingers who point out that gun control enables murderers rather than stopping them. Liberals get to lobby for gun control, but we're disallowed from arguing back. That's how good their arguments are. They're that good.

Needless to say, Virginia Tech is a Gun-Free School Zone -- at least until last Monday. The gunman must not have known. Imagine his embarrassment! Perhaps there should be signs.

Virginia Tech even prohibits students with concealed-carry permits from carrying their guns on campus. Last year, the school disciplined a student for carrying a gun on campus, despite his lawful concealed-carry permit. If only someone like that had been in Norris Hall on Monday, this massacre could have been ended a lot sooner.

But last January, the Virginia General Assembly shot down a bill that would have prevented universities like Virginia Tech from giving sanctuary to mass murderers on college campuses in Virginia by disarming students with concealed-carry permits valid in the rest of the state.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker praised the legislature for allowing the school to disarm lawful gun owners on the faculty and student body, thereby surrendering every college campus in the state to deranged mass murderers, saying: "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Others disagreed. Writing last year about another dangerous killer who had been loose on the Virginia Tech campus, graduate student Jonathan McGlumphy wrote: "Is it not obvious that all students, faculty and staff would have been safer if (concealed handgun permit) holders were not banned from carrying their weapons on campus?"

If it wasn't obvious then, it is now.

'''By Ann Coulter''' [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20329]
--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:09, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
Sweet! Anne Coulter found a way to capitalize on this tragedy in record time! good on her! Aren't we all proud! [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== VT killer was an anti-Christian zealot ==

Read what has leaked to the press about his 8-page final note to authorities, which has not been released to the public and may never be. I put the link on the front page. This was an anti-Christian zealot, and the authorities are hiding this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Actually in the bit of video released he presents himself as a pro Christian and compares himself to Jesus. Why would you make obviously untrue statements? He was delusional and clearly not a Christian in any meaningful sense but your statement is a lie and seemingly one made agenda. Please don't continue to attempt to capitalize on this Mr. Barnum or are you Mr. Bailey today? Instead try to be honest. That will make this site more trsutworthy. Not your continual radical screeds. Thank you for your consideration in this matter [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Godman, did you actually read the link Andy put up to the leaked material? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yup and I've seen the video that has been released so far and read what there is of the transecripts. How about you? [[User:Godman|Godman]] 21:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Another who cannot be engaged in civil talk? *sigh* --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:41, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: "Godman", I provided support for my statement. Where's yours?

: As always, the real target of evil is Jesus Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Well, actually the real target of evil was the 30 some college students and faculty . . . [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:43, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Godman. Aschlafly's statement that the killer was an anti-Christian zealot is not substantiated by the video released on NBC. The exact quote from the video is "You have vandalized my heart, raped my soul and torched my conscience. You thought it was one pathetic boy’s life you were extinguishing. Thanks to you, I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak and the defenseless people." It's not an anti-Christian message when he says that his death will inspire the weak and suffering just as Christ's death. Aschlafly conclusion is obviously wrong based on text in the video. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 21:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*God is love, Macronking. Nothing he did is like the Son. Jesus Christ died so that even that poor devil's soul could be saved. Things done like that are not "love" therefore cannot even be attributed or likened to Him. To do so is the work of evil, like Andy said. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:53, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Godman and Macronking, Those meantioned videos can be found from [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/ here] -- [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 21:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't change the topic TK. The issue was if the released video supports an anti-Christian message. That assertion is not supported by the video. I agree that his actions are in no way in-line with Christianity, but the issue was if his video constituted an anti-Christian rant. The video doesn't support that claim, so the statement that it does on the Main Page should be removed. --[[User:Macronking|Macronking]] 22:01, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

No one, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, is saying that the killer can be/should be "be attributed or likened to Him" but the killer does compare himself to Jesus on the video quoted above and veiwable on MSNBC.com. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

So how does a guy who's been DECLARED MENTALLY ILL get to buy handguns? Nice system. Good to know the second amendment is looking out for me. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 22:28, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::why do you advocate gun ban like [[Hitler]] did?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:47, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Compare me to Hitler again and I'll complain to a sysop and ask for you to be banned. Play nice. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: It boggles the mind how gun toting radicals see this tragedy as an argument for less gun control. Let's think about '''conserving''' life shall we?
::::::what about neo-luddite radicals using this tragedy as an argument for more gun control?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: he lied about his being committed on the form used to do a background check. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 22:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Ah. 'Cuz we should take the word of the CRIMINALLY INSANE when they buy lethal weapons. Great system. Much better than, I don't know, NOT LETTING PEOPLE HAVE CONCEALBLE WEAPONS. [[User:Jacobin|Jacobin]] 23:07, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:for every weapon, you can find a big enough bag to conceal it.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:08, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::: True enough, but a bag to conceal a rifle would be a lot more noticable . .. [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:13, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::pfff, you can easily fit a rifle in a suitcase. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:19, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::a criminally insane person could have strangled someone with a peice of twine. I think we should have tighter restrictions on the sale of twine. Perhaps a total ban[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::: Here is the reference that this site's owner says makes the killer an "Anti-Christian Zealot" Emphasis mine . . . "''He also expressed '''disappointment in his own religion''', and made '''several references to Christianity,''' the official said.''" [[User:Godman|Godman]] 23:12, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

: '''REPLY TO ALL''' I reviewed the video transcripts. The reference to Jesus Christ is in ''competition'' with Him, not in respect of Him. This is what one would expect by anti-Christian zealot.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::''anti-Christian zealot'' or deranged mind?. I'd go for the deranged mind interpretation. Though there do seem to be a lot of deranged minds out and about these days, nearer than one thinks, so keeping an eye over the shoulder is perhaps a good idea. Don't get paranoid though - I have heard rumours that it can lead to a deranged mind.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:12, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Osama Bin Laden

2007-04-18T12:14:04Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: another source

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|thumb]]

Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian millionaire and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group responsible for [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] and some other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He obtained his wealth by inheriting it from his father, Mohammed Awad bin Laden, who was a successful entrepreneur in the construction industry.

Osama Bin Laden was expelled from [[Saudi Arabia]] in 1992 after he criticized the Saudi government for permitting the United States to station troops there to liberate [[Kuwait]] from [[Saddam Hussein]]'s invasion.

Bin Laden lived in Sudan for most of the 1990's at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. He then returned to [[Afghanistan]], where he had fought against the Soviets in the 1980's. He was protected by the [[Taliban]] until the American liberation of [[Afghanistan]] following [[9/11]].

During the 1980s insurgency against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the CIA helped to train and arm anti-Soviet Islamic militants such as the Taliban<ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0923-01.htm</ref>. Bin Laden had his own source of funding, though, and would have shunned influence by America.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html</ref>

He remains at large to this day.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]

Osama Bin Laden

2007-04-18T12:00:12Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: References

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|thumb]]

Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian millionaire and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group responsible for [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] and some other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He obtained his wealth by inheriting it from his father, Mohammed Awad bin Laden, who was a successful entrepreneur in the construction industry.

Osama Bin Laden was expelled from [[Saudi Arabia]] in 1992 after he criticized the Saudi government for permitting the United States to station troops there to liberate [[Kuwait]] from [[Saddam Hussein]]'s invasion.

Bin Laden lived in Sudan for most of the 1990's at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. He then returned to [[Afghanistan]], where he had fought against the Soviets in the 1980's. He was protected by the [[Taliban]] until the American liberation of [[Afghanistan]] following [[9/11]].

During the 1980s insurgency against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the CIA helped to train and arm anti-Soviet Islamic militants. Bin Laden had his own source of funding, though, and would have shunned influence by America.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html</ref>

He remains at large to this day.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]

Osama Bin Laden

2007-04-18T11:59:30Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: source

[[Image:382px-AQ00100.jpg|right|thumb]]

Osama Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian millionaire and the leader of [[al Qaeda]], a worldwide [[terrorist]] group responsible for [[September 11, 2001 attacks]] and some other terrorist attacks on Americans in the 1990s. He obtained his wealth by inheriting it from his father, Mohammed Awad bin Laden, who was a successful entrepreneur in the construction industry.

Osama Bin Laden was expelled from [[Saudi Arabia]] in 1992 after he criticized the Saudi government for permitting the United States to station troops there to liberate [[Kuwait]] from [[Saddam Hussein]]'s invasion.

Bin Laden lived in Sudan for most of the 1990's at the invitation of [[Hassan al-Turabi]], a powerful Sudanese political leader and terrorism supporter. He then returned to [[Afghanistan]], where he had fought against the Soviets in the 1980's. He was protected by the [[Taliban]] until the American liberation of [[Afghanistan]] following [[9/11]].

During the 1980s insurgency against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan the CIA helped to train and arm anti-Soviet Islamic militants. Bin Laden had his own source of funding, though, and would have shunned influence by America.<ref>http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html</ref>

He remains at large to this day.

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bin Laden, Osama}}
[[Category:Military Commanders]]
[[Category:Terrorists]]

Template talk:Retired user

2007-04-17T13:38:01Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: I wanted to ask that

You suggest that this template is for banned users, yet it says "retired". Perhaps a less deceptive concoction could be offered?--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 09:29, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to ask that.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:38, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Enoch Powell

2007-04-16T20:30:02Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: typo

'''John Enoch Powell''' (June 16, 1912 – February 8, 1998) was a [[conservative]] British politician.
He was a member of the [[Conservative Party]] and served as a member of Parliament from 1950 to 1974 After that, until 1987, he served as a member of the conservative [[Ulster Unionist party]] in order to oppose the [[Marxist]] [[Sinn Fein]] and their [[Terrorist]] arm the [[Irish Republican Army]].

He often warned of the dangers of immigration and multiracialism and their affects on national identity. He also opposed the undermining of British sovereignty by joining the European Economic Community (now the [[European Union]]).

Talk:Leftist

2007-04-16T20:26:30Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Definition */ Fair enough

This is a total contradiction:

:'' Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists

People living under Communism are not "oppressed". Pul-leez. It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view. That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis. The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals. It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.

:Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:
# leftist?
# rightist?
# none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism==

::Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as [[Marxism]] ( or "[[Marxism-Leninism]]") and its history in countries like [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[Cambodia]], etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by ''People living under Communism are not "oppressed".'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I was talking about this quote,
:::''"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists''
:::This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Definition==

:Here it is written that leftist "''usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions.''" What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't ''support'' their ''economic interests, or personal values''. Are such people ''leftist''?

:''During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ...'' The phrase ''the left'' implies ''the left'' are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left ''attempted a dechristianization movement''? (simply read the linked article [[Enlightenment]]) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''leftists'' are and are not an encyclopedic description of ''leftist'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism. Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them. So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you trying to say '''all''' ''leftists'' supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/ [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:RobS|RobS]] reverted it before I had taken my finger of the ''save page'' button.

::I thought this definition:
:::The term '''Leftist'' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics.
::was somewhat better than:
:::The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.
::What can others add, what do they think?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::''change designed to promote the public welfare''
::::That [[leftist]] utopia, [[North Korea]] is "designed to promote the public welfare"? you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Did you actually read ''change designed to promote the public welfare''? Note the word ''designed''. There is no implication in the sentence that the ''design'' will actually succeed. [[Kim Jong Il]] may weel believe his ''leftismness'' is ''designed to promote the public welfare'' - I belive it won't succeed.
::George Bush is following a strategy ''designed'' to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental. IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think that the term ''leftist'' is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Would you agree the term [[theory]] is applicable? I am contemplating a poll to page move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]] by consensus. Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under [[Differences with Wikipedia]] No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create [[Essay: Political spectrum theory]]. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well actually, I'm not interested in the spectrum theory, and rarely use designations like "left" or "right"; I do make occasional references to "leftists" for persons and groups who identify themselves as "leftists". My only job is to insure factual marterial is placed in any of the these articles. And assertions such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity", or "liberals are broadminded" are proveably false assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For someone who rarely use designations like "left" or "right" you seem to be eager to retain a monopoly on how they are defined.
:::*[http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html Political Terms We All Should Know]
:::*[http://pages.slc.edu/~sersauli/filmcourse/Liste%20e%20informazioni/Glossario%20film.htm Louis Giannetti, Understanding Movies]
:::*[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=leftist Wordnet Princeton]
:::An encyclopedia would generally follow or describe the existing definitions. The opinion of [[User:RobS|RobS]] wouldn't normally meet encylopedic requirements. The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own, which have often then be reverted by those more encyclopedic than yourself.
:::Perhaps you could be kind enough to show me where edits such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity" or "liberals are broadminded" have occured on Conservapedia, unencyclopedic as they are.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So one of these cites says, "''reduce or eliminate these inequalities.... Common political paths include socialism , [[communism]]'''". Can we factually say [[Cuba]] has failed in this regard?
::::*"''The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own''"
::::ahhhh, those well sourced edits at [[Political spectrum]] were all added by me [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=prev&oldid=103102][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=next&oldid=103136], and 90% of the article, as it is now, was written by me. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=105654&oldid=95884]
::::Care to stop embarassing yourself before engaging in any further personal attacks? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:51, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Fair enough. Well at least the [[Reign of Terror]] stuff disappeared .[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 16:26, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I fear [[User:RobS|RobS]] believes they (communism, socialism, social democracy and so on) are all part of the same conspiracy.[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Abuse

2007-04-16T19:48:41Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Dealt with */ No action taken.

This is where you can report abuse of editing privileges. Please make notes short and concise.
__TOC__
Sysops, please move notes down to 'old alerts' once the incident is closed.

Archives:
[[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive1|1]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive2|2]] [[Conservapedia:Abuse/Archive3|3]]

Other links:
*[[Conservapedia:Abuse|Abuse Reporting]]
*[[Conservapedia: Vandalism alert]] This is a page not yet created.
*[[Conservapedia:Sysop and Admin Abuse|Administrative Abuse]]
*[[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion|Articles for Deletion]]
*[[:Category:Speedy deletion candidates|Articles for Speedy Deletion]]
*[[User:CPanel|Conservapedia Panel]]

==Current Alerts==

#{{user|ILikeCookies}} - not so much abusive edits as just plain fluff--doesn't quite seem appropriate. What does everybody think?
#{{user|Save Our Values}}
#The 6 random hex digit sock perp is back: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|AppliedFaith}} -trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Holocaust&diff=prev&oldid=104416][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Heterosexuality&diff=prev&oldid=104363], "sexual activity is always impure, even when conducted within marriage."
#{{user|Homeschool mom}} lays it on too thick - suspected parodist
: Warned 4/15. Awaiting response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
:: No response. Another user said that her edits are copies from Wikipedia. Looks like we may have to block. Give her another day to respond?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:46, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|GofG}} useless edits - warned
#{{user|Vyngarsson}} - 11 April 2007, trolling, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Resurrection&diff=prev&oldid=99990] for a good example. Another example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=103140&oldid=101324]
#{{user|Phiattiangel}} - 11 April 2007, trolling.
===Dealt with===

#[[User:AnonymousLegion]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:59, 4 April 2007 (EDT) --Blocked by --[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:44, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
#[[User:Mjc12]] - blocked by Conservative
#{{user|Polarbear}} - Please check authenticity of comments and contribs---Blocked by [[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
#TK blocked [[User:Cheney123|Cheney123]] (contribs) (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandalism: "Democrats" )
#[[User:Theelephant]] - Vandalism--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 18:09, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
#*18:09, 4 April 2007 Tsumetai blocked Theelephant (contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (obscenity)
#{{user|Cooperstown4}} - 9 April 2007, TK blocked Cooperstown4 (infinite, account creation blocked) (Vandal/Nonsense/Insults)
#{{user|Zac4213}} - Was my block too hasty?
#{{user|Jaques}}- Many recent edits very similar to Wikipedia and use exact same pictures, See [[Whale]] and [[Plankton]].
: Jaques is a frequent contributor and many of his entries are good. The complaint would have to be more specific than this. There is nothing wrong about copying public domain pictures, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:23, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Mandolin2k}} - Joke entry (see "Jellystone")
#{{user|Godblessamerica}} - Copying from Wikipedia, prank edit here: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wales&diff=prev&oldid=105299]
#{{user|Hamtandrus}} -self identified Holocaust denier. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_denial&diff=prev&oldid=105297]
::I think he's just being facetious.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::: He also says that he's 'done with this - place' [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::'''No block''' Holocaust denial isn't against the rules. Geo.[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Geo.plrd Talk] 18:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|SRogers}} - anti-Semitism; see piped link Judaism|bankers in Federal Reserve article, for example [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Federal_Reserve&diff=90085&oldid=81656] -- 6 month block, (Conduct detrimental to Conservapedia --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
#{{user|Aschlafly}} Complaint removed by {{user|TK}}. No action taken.

Talk:Leftist

2007-04-16T19:37:12Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Definition */ Retaining a monopoly?

This is a total contradiction:

:'' Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists

People living under Communism are not "oppressed". Pul-leez. It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view. That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis. The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals. It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.

:Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:
# leftist?
# rightist?
# none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism==

::Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as [[Marxism]] ( or "[[Marxism-Leninism]]") and its history in countries like [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[Cambodia]], etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by ''People living under Communism are not "oppressed".'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I was talking about this quote,
:::''"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists''
:::This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Definition==

:Here it is written that leftist "''usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions.''" What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't ''support'' their ''economic interests, or personal values''. Are such people ''leftist''?

:''During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ...'' The phrase ''the left'' implies ''the left'' are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left ''attempted a dechristianization movement''? (simply read the linked article [[Enlightenment]]) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''leftists'' are and are not an encyclopedic description of ''leftist'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism. Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them. So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you trying to say '''all''' ''leftists'' supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/ [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:RobS|RobS]] reverted it before I had taken my finger of the ''save page'' button.

::I thought this definition:
:::The term '''Leftist'' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics.
::was somewhat better than:
:::The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.
::What can others add, what do they think?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::''change designed to promote the public welfare''
::::That [[leftist]] utopia, [[North Korea]] is "designed to promote the public welfare"? you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Did you actually read ''change designed to promote the public welfare''? Note the word ''designed''. There is no implication in the sentence that the ''design'' will actually succeed. [[Kim Jong Il]] may weel believe his ''leftismness'' is ''designed to promote the public welfare'' - I belive it won't succeed.
::George Bush is following a strategy ''designed'' to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental. IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think that the term ''leftist'' is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Would you agree the term [[theory]] is applicable? I am contemplating a poll to page move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]] by consensus. Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under [[Differences with Wikipedia]] No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create [[Essay: Political spectrum theory]]. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Well actually, I'm not interested in the spectrum theory, and rarely use designations like "left" or "right"; I do make occasional references to "leftists" for persons and groups who identify themselves as "leftists". My only job is to insure factual marterial is placed in any of the these articles. And assertions such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity", or "liberals are broadminded" are proveably false assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::For someone who rarely use designations like "left" or "right" you seem to be eager to retain a monopoly on how they are defined.
:::*[http://www.information-entertainment.com/Politics/polterms.html Political Terms We All Should Know]
:::*[http://pages.slc.edu/~sersauli/filmcourse/Liste%20e%20informazioni/Glossario%20film.htm Louis Giannetti, Understanding Movies]
:::*[http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=leftist Wordnet Princeton]
:::An encyclopedia would generally follow or describe the existing definitions. The opinion of [[User:RobS|RobS]] wouldn't normally meet encylopedic requirements. The article [[Political spectrum]] seems to manage much better, edits being well sourced, the only exceptions your own, which have often then be reverted by those more encyclopedic than yourself.
:::Perhaps you could be kind enough to show me where edits such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity" or "liberals are broadminded" have occured on Conservapedia, unencyclopedic as they are.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I fear [[User:RobS|RobS]] believes they (communism, socialism, social democracy and so on) are all part of the same conspiracy.[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Leftist

2007-04-16T19:13:35Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Communism */ Inserting heading 'Definition' to tidy page

This is a total contradiction:

:'' Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists

People living under Communism are not "oppressed". Pul-leez. It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view. That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis. The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals. It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.

:Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:
# leftist?
# rightist?
# none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism==

::Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as [[Marxism]] ( or "[[Marxism-Leninism]]") and its history in countries like [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[Cambodia]], etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by ''People living under Communism are not "oppressed".'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I was talking about this quote,
:::''"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists''
:::This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Definition==

:Here it is written that leftist "''usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions.''" What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't ''support'' their ''economic interests, or personal values''. Are such people ''leftist''?

:''During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ...'' The phrase ''the left'' implies ''the left'' are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left ''attempted a dechristianization movement''? (simply read the linked article [[Enlightenment]]) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''leftists'' are and are not an encyclopedic description of ''leftist'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism. Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them. So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you trying to say '''all''' ''leftists'' supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/ [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:RobS|RobS]] reverted it before I had taken my finger of the ''save page'' button.

::I thought this definition:
:::The term '''Leftist'' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics.
::was somewhat better than:
:::The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.
::What can others add, what do they think?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::''change designed to promote the public welfare''
::::That [[leftist]] utopia, [[North Korea]] is "designed to promote the public welfare"? you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Did you actually read ''change designed to promote the public welfare''? Note the word ''designed''. There is no implication in the sentence that the ''design'' will actually succeed. [[Kim Jong Il]] may weel believe his ''leftismness'' is ''designed to promote the public welfare'' - I belive it won't succeed.
::George Bush is following a strategy ''designed'' to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental. IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think that the term ''leftist'' is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Would you agree the term [[theory]] is applicable? I am contemplating a poll to page move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]] by consensus. Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under [[Differences with Wikipedia]] No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create [[Essay: Political spectrum theory]]. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Well actually, I'm not interested in the spectrum theory, and rarely use designations like "left" or "right"; I do make occasional references to "leftists" for persons and groups who identify themselves as "leftists". My only job is to insure factual marterial is placed in any of the these articles. And assertions such as "leftists are for what's beneficial to humanity", or "liberals are broadminded" are proveably false assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:07, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I fear [[User:RobS|RobS]] believes they are all part of the same conspiracy.[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Leftist

2007-04-16T18:41:27Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: Write an essay

This is a total contradiction:

:'' Politics on the 'left' usually imply taking positions in favor of poor, powerless, or oppressed people. Therefore communists, socialists, and social democrats are usually considered leftists

People living under Communism are not "oppressed". Pul-leez. It will be reverted, but I haven;t a clue how to fix it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

That is not a contradiction but a limit of the one dimentional political view. That is why some views use an additional libertarian/authoritarian axis. The communist ideal is in favor of the positions mentioned above, but takes a very authoritarian approach to acheiving those goals. It is by that standard that it becomes oppressive and indeed, much of the reason that communism seems to fight its own ideals.

:Exactly, it's not a contradiction at all: it's evidence that not every political viewpoint lies on a left/right spectrum. Back in 1917 communists and a lot of other kinds of leftist radicals stood up in favor of the poor and the serfs against the Russian nobility. They proceeded to massively screw up their country. So around 1989 a lot of ordinary Russians stood up against oppression by Soviet bureaucrats. The people who overthrew the USSR were:
# leftist?
# rightist?
# none of the above? (Seems to me that's the right answer!!) --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I made some comments on how to define the political spectrum on the Talk:rightist page. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 05:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism==

::Rob, I studied Communism - both its theoretical components such as [[Marxism]] ( or "[[Marxism-Leninism]]") and its history in countries like [[Soviet Union]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[Cambodia]], etc.) I'm not sure what you mean by ''People living under Communism are not "oppressed".'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I was talking about this quote,
:::''"Politics on the 'left' ...imply taking positions in favor of ...oppressed people. Therefore communists...are ...considered leftists''
:::This ranks with Holocaust denial in it's offensive quality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here it is written that leftist "''usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions.''" What about people in a country such as France with a highly regulated economy challenging this on the grounds that it doesn't ''support'' their ''economic interests, or personal values''. Are such people ''leftist''?

:''During the Reign of Terror of the early Enlightenment, the left attempted a dechristianization movement to ...'' The phrase ''the left'' implies ''the left'' are some kind of homgenous mass. All of the left ''attempted a dechristianization movement''? (simply read the linked article [[Enlightenment]]) What relevance the ramblings of an anarchist have I will leave to others to decide. Such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''leftists'' are and are not an encyclopedic description of ''leftist'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 15:15, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::What is unfortunate is we reached the pot-of-gold at the end of the leftist rainbow in 1989 with the collapse of Communism. Now we see all these definitions are problematic, but certain editors wish to hold to them. So they just need to be balanced with the factual record of leftist accomplishments. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:31, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Are you trying to say '''all''' ''leftists'' supported communism? As a consequence do you think this should be reflected in the article?
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::::That is dependent upon which timeframe or era you are discussing. As we've stated, the term has been redefined several times/ [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::I Made a tentative edit which makes a timeframe irrelevant.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:[[User:RobS|RobS]] reverted it before I had taken my finger of the ''save page'' button.

::I thought this definition:
:::The term '''Leftist'' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally supports varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics.
::was somewhat better than:
:::The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency.
::What can others add, what do they think?
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::''change designed to promote the public welfare''
::::That [[leftist]] utopia, [[North Korea]] is "designed to promote the public welfare"? you will probably get an arguement there. And North Korea, beginning with the founding of the regime, or its state and condition today, can hardly be described as "conservative", or "right-wing". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::Did you actually read ''change designed to promote the public welfare''? Note the word ''designed''. There is no implication in the sentence that the ''design'' will actually succeed. [[Kim Jong Il]] may weel believe his ''leftismness'' is ''designed to promote the public welfare'' - I belive it won't succeed.
::George Bush is following a strategy ''designed'' to defeat global terrorism. Discuss.
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So, under this theory, we are to ignore what actual human experience has taught us, and continue promoting and propounding myths that the judgement of history says are extremely hazardous and detrimental. IOW, ignore human rights violations, and continue propounding the myth its all for the "benefit" of "public welfare". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I think that the term ''leftist'' is so impossibly vague as to be almost meaningless. There is no such thing as an identifiable leftist ideology. Ideologies such as communism, socialism, social democracy and so on may all be "leftist" to some degree, but are different enough from one another to make a collective term such as leftist essentially empty. [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 14:12, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Would you agree the term [[theory]] is applicable? I am contemplating a poll to page move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]] by consensus. Then we can engage in theorizing and generalizations without the highly contentious and controversial doctrinaire assertions. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:30, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Since most of your edits seem to be based on either your personal opinion, which would be in violation of [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] No. 5, or is your own original research, which is apparently acceptable under [[Differences with Wikipedia]] No.10, an unambiguous solution would be for you to create [[Essay: Political spectrum theory]]. Then those of us who prefer to write encyclopedic articles could get on with the job undisturbed by eager researchers.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::I fear [[User:RobS|RobS]] believes they are all part of the same conspiracy.[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:21, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Leftist

2007-04-16T18:21:26Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: They are all part of the same conspiracy

Talk:Leftist

2007-04-16T18:19:46Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Communism */ Note the word ''designed''!

Talk:Leftist

2007-04-16T18:03:52Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: What can others add, what do they think?

Leftist

2007-04-16T17:56:55Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: on second thoughts you're right: murder, extermination, and terror is hardly 'Trivia'

{{merge|political spectrum}}
The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. Politics on the 'left' usually imply challenging the traditional system of a society, by people who believe their economic interests, or personal values, or political rights are not supported by the traditional ruling institutions. Of course, it is obvious that there is not just one dimension of political thought, so that people can unambiguously be classified as 'right' or 'left'. Nonetheless, the left/right description of the [[political spectrum theory]] still has wide currency. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word [[liberal]].

The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word [[liberal]].

==Conservative facts==

During the [[Reign of Terror]] during the [[French Revolution]], ''the left'' attempted a dechristianization movement to replace the "reactionary" worship of God and replace it with the worship of national patriotism, or the ''Patrie''. Many churches were closed and converted into Temples of Reason. <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963).</ref>

Michael Bakunin critiqued prominent leftist theoritician [[Karl Marx]] in 1873 with these words,

:"..if the [[proletariat]] is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? ...the peasant "rabble" who, as it is known, does not enjoy the sympathy of the Marxists who consider it to represent a [[Racism|lower level of culture]], will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities. Or, if this problem is to be approached [[Nationalism|nationalist]]ically, the [[Slavs]] will be placed in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie." <ref>Michael Bakunin, ''Statism and Anarchy'', (1873), in Sam Dolgoff, ''Bakunin'' On Anarchy, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972), p. 330.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html V. I. Lenin, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder''] (1920) V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Leftist

2007-04-16T17:41:24Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: tentative copyedit

Leftist

2007-04-16T17:39:16Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: typo

{{merge|political spectrum}}
The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]] who generally support varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics.

The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word [[liberal]].

==Trivia==

During the [[Reign of Terror]] of the early [[Enlightenment]], the left attempted a dechristianization movement to replace the "reactionary" worship of God and replace it with the worship of national patriotism, or the ''Patrie''. Many churches were closed and converted into Temples of Reason. <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). </ref>

Michael Bakunin critiqued prominent leftist theoritician [[Karl Marx]] in 1873 with these words,

:"..if the [[proletariat]] is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? ...the peasant "rabble" who, as it is known, does not enjoy the sympathy of the Marxists who consider it to represent a [[Racism|lower level of culture]], will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities. Or, if this problem is to be approached [[Nationalism|nationalist]]ically, the [[Slavs]] will be placed in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie." <ref>Michael Bakunin, ''Statism and Anarchy'', (1873), in Sam Dolgoff, ''Bakunin'' On Anarchy, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972), p. 330.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html V. I. Lenin, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder''] (1920) V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.

[[category:politics]]

Leftist

2007-04-16T17:38:59Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: copyedit

{{merge|political spectrum}}
The term '''Leftist''' refers to someone on the 'left' side of the [[political spectrum]]. who generally support varying degrees of social or political or economic change designed to promote the public welfare, variously in the guises of social democracy, or liberalism, the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those or who oppose right-wing politics.

The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word [[liberal]].

==Trivia==

During the [[Reign of Terror]] of the early [[Enlightenment]], the left attempted a dechristianization movement to replace the "reactionary" worship of God and replace it with the worship of national patriotism, or the ''Patrie''. Many churches were closed and converted into Temples of Reason. <ref>John Hall Stewart, ''A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution'' (Macmillan, New York, 1963). </ref>

Michael Bakunin critiqued prominent leftist theoritician [[Karl Marx]] in 1873 with these words,

:"..if the [[proletariat]] is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? ...the peasant "rabble" who, as it is known, does not enjoy the sympathy of the Marxists who consider it to represent a [[Racism|lower level of culture]], will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities. Or, if this problem is to be approached [[Nationalism|nationalist]]ically, the [[Slavs]] will be placed in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie." <ref>Michael Bakunin, ''Statism and Anarchy'', (1873), in Sam Dolgoff, ''Bakunin'' On Anarchy, (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972), p. 330.</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
* [http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html V. I. Lenin, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder''] (1920) V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.

[[category:politics]]

Enoch Powell

2007-04-16T17:17:42Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: wikify

'''John Enoch Powell'' (June 16, 1912 – February 8, 1998) was a [[conservative]] British politician.
He was a member of the [[Conservative Party]] and served as a member of Parliament from 1950 to 1974 After that, until 1987, he served as a member of the conservative [[Ulster Unionist party]] in order to oppose the [[Marxist]] [[Sinn Fein]] and their [[Terrorist]] arm the [[Irish Republican Army]].

He often warned of the dangers of immigration and multiracialism and their affects on national identity. He also opposed the undermining of British sovereignty by joining the European Economic Community (now the [[European Union]]).

Gerry Adams

2007-04-16T17:13:01Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: wikify

Gerry Adams (born October 6, 1948) has been the president of [[Sinn Fein]], a political party in the [[Republic of Ireland]] and in [[Northern Ireland]], since 1983. He has been elected to the [[United Kingdom]] parliament, for the Belfast West constituency, but has never formally taken up his seat, although he and other Sinn Fein MPs do make use of parliamentary facilities. Adams was one of the key figures in the [[Irish peace process]], which culminated with the 1998 [[Good Friday Agreement]]<ref>Moloney, E. (2002). A Secret History of the IRA. New York: WJ Wiley</ref>.

== Early life ==
Gerard Adams (Gearóid Mac Ádhaimh in Irish Gaelic) was born into a Catholic Nationalist family in West Belfast as one of 10 siblings. Both sides of the family had an extensive history of involvement in Nationalist activities. Adams attended primary school in Belfast, but left school early to become a bartender, and joined Sinn Fein in 1964.

== Republican activity ==
Adams was an important figure in the [[terrorist]] [[IRA]] from the early 1970s<ref>http://www.ivanfoster.org/page.asp?ira</ref> He was interned without trial in 1971 but released in July 1972 to participate in negotiations with the British government. Adams has consistently denied ever being an IRA member.<ref>Cowan, R. (October 1, 2002). Adams denies IRA links as book calls him genius. ''The Guardian''.</ref>

In 1983, Adams became the first member of Sinn Fein to be elected to the UK [[House of Commons]] since 1918. Sinn Fein had generally not contested UK elections during that period, as a protest against UK rule in Northern Ireland. Adams is an abstentionist MP, meaning that he has never taken his seat in the House of Commons, consistent with Sinn Fein policy.

In March 1984 Adams survived an assassination attempt by members of the [[Ulster Freedom Fighters]], or UFF, a terrorist group dedicated to maintaining the link between Northern Ireland and the UK. The UFF members were arrested shortly after the shooting by undercover officers of the [[Royal Irish Constabulary]], and Adams has claimed that the police were aware that the assassination attempt was planned and allowed it to happen<ref>Maguire, K. (December 14, 2006). Adams wants 1984 shooting probe. ''BBC''.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Gerry Adams

2007-04-16T17:02:20Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Republican activity */ there's the word

Gerry Adams (born October 6, 1948) has been the president of Sinn Fein, a political party in the [[Republic of Ireland]] and in [[Northern Ireland]], since 1983. He has been elected to the [[United Kingdom]] parliament, for the Belfast West constituency, but has never formally taken up his seat, although he and other Sinn Fein MPs do make use of parliamentary facilities. Adams was one of the key figures in the [[Irish peace process]], which culminated with the 1998 [[Good Friday Agreement]].

== Early life ==
Gerard Adams (Gearóid Mac Ádhaimh in Irish Gaelic) was born into a Catholic Nationalist family in West Belfast as one of 10 siblings. Both sides of the family had an extensive history of involvement in Nationalist activities. Adams attended primary school in Belfast, but left school early to become a bartender, and joined Sinn Fein in 1964.

== Republican activity ==
Adams was an important figure in the [[terrorist]] [[IRA]] from the early 1970s<ref>http://www.ivanfoster.org/page.asp?ira</ref> He was interned without trial in 1971 but released in July 1972 to participate in negotiations with the British government. Adams has consistently denied ever being an IRA member.<ref>Cowan, R. (October 1, 2002). Adams denies IRA links as book calls him genius. ''The Guardian''.</ref>

In 1983, Adams became the first member of Sinn Fein to be elected to the UK [[House of Commons]] since 1918. Sinn Fein had generally not contested UK elections during that period, as a protest against UK rule in Northern Ireland. Adams is an abstentionist MP, meaning that he has never taken his seat in the House of Commons, consistent with Sinn Fein policy.

In March 1984 Adams survived an assassination attempt by members of the [[Ulster Freedom Fighters]], or UFF, a terrorist group dedicated to maintaining the link between Northern Ireland and the UK. The UFF members were arrested shortly after the shooting by undercover officers of the [[Royal Irish Constabulary]], and Adams has claimed that the police were aware that the assassination attempt was planned and allowed it to happen<ref>Maguire, K. (December 14, 2006). Adams wants 1984 shooting probe. ''BBC''.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Gerry Adams

2007-04-16T17:01:54Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: /* Republican activity */ We use the word terrorist here! (Differences with Wikipedia No. 8)

Gerry Adams (born October 6, 1948) has been the president of Sinn Fein, a political party in the [[Republic of Ireland]] and in [[Northern Ireland]], since 1983. He has been elected to the [[United Kingdom]] parliament, for the Belfast West constituency, but has never formally taken up his seat, although he and other Sinn Fein MPs do make use of parliamentary facilities. Adams was one of the key figures in the [[Irish peace process]], which culminated with the 1998 [[Good Friday Agreement]].

== Early life ==
Gerard Adams (Gearóid Mac Ádhaimh in Irish Gaelic) was born into a Catholic Nationalist family in West Belfast as one of 10 siblings. Both sides of the family had an extensive history of involvement in Nationalist activities. Adams attended primary school in Belfast, but left school early to become a bartender, and joined Sinn Fein in 1964.

== Republican activity ==
Adams was an important figure in the [[IRA]] from the early 1970s<ref>http://www.ivanfoster.org/page.asp?ira</ref> He was interned without trial in 1971 but released in July 1972 to participate in negotiations with the British government. Adams has consistently denied ever being an IRA member.<ref>Cowan, R. (October 1, 2002). Adams denies IRA links as book calls him genius. ''The Guardian''.</ref>

In 1983, Adams became the first member of Sinn Fein to be elected to the UK [[House of Commons]] since 1918. Sinn Fein had generally not contested UK elections during that period, as a protest against UK rule in Northern Ireland. Adams is an abstentionist MP, meaning that he has never taken his seat in the House of Commons, consistent with Sinn Fein policy.

In March 1984 Adams survived an assassination attempt by members of the [[Ulster Freedom Fighters]], or UFF, a terrorist group dedicated to maintaining the link between Northern Ireland and the UK. The UFF members were arrested shortly after the shooting by undercover officers of the [[Royal Irish Constabulary]], and Adams has claimed that the police were aware that the assassination attempt was planned and allowed it to happen<ref>Maguire, K. (December 14, 2006). Adams wants 1984 shooting probe. ''BBC''.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

Conservative estimate

2007-04-16T16:53:13Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: create article

Jeans

2007-04-16T15:18:50Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: copyedit

'''Jeans''' were originally [[pants]] worn at work. They were traditionally made from [[denim]] but also from a variety of material including [[corduroy]], the preferred fabric of [[liberal]] intellectuals. Jeans are believed to have devoloped from 16th century Indian dungarees. Modern jeans were invented for Californian miners in the 1850s by a fellow called [[Levi Strauss]] who lived in [[San Francisco]]. Today minors and adults across the world wear jeans. An enduring symbol of American freedom.

Enoch Powell

2007-04-16T14:58:39Z

WhatIsG0ing0n: create article

'''John Enoch Powell'' (June 16, 1912 – February 8, 1998) was a [[conservative]] British politician.
He was a member of the [[Conservative party]] and served as a member of Parliament from 1950 to 1974 After that, until 1987, he served as a member of the conservative [[Ulster Unionist party]] in order to oppose the [[Marxist]] [[Sinn Fein]] and their [[Terrorist]] arm the [[Irish Republican Army]].

He often warned of the dangers of immigration and multiracialism and their affects on national identity. He also opposed the undermining of British sovereignty by joining the European Economic Community (now the [[European Union]]).